Ogilvy Court

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We assessed 8 quality statements from this key question. We found that people were protected from harm. Staff were recruited safely. The service had an open culture and made sure they learned lessons from mistakes or when things went wrong. People told us they felt safe living at the service. Health and safety was well managed and monitored. The environment was well maintained and clean.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s relatives told us they felt their loved ones experienced good quality care. When things went wrong, they said the manager took this on board and improvements were made.

Staff told us they had regular lessons learned meetings one staff member said, “We speak about falls and fractures we have meetings and tackle things as soon as we can, all the staff are involved. We work well with the local authority safeguarding team, and we know who to call and what to do.” Senior managers told us safety events were reported and investigated, and that staff knew who to escalate issues to. Weekly clinical meetings were held to learn lessons, the manager told us, “We look at what happened today, yesterday and what is in place for tomorrow.”

The provider had processes for staff to report incidents, near misses and safety events. There was a system to record and investigate complaints, and when things went wrong. Learning from incidents and complaints resulted in changes that improved care for others.

People and relatives told us the home was caring, and that people were looked after well. Relatives told us that when a person went into hospital, the staff and manager would continue to check up on them and update families when needed.

Staff told us they worked well with other partners. One staff member told us they referred a person to a hospice, and this was due to their condition deteriorating. The end-of-life care plans was put in place. This meat the person could receive appropriate care and pain management according to their preferences and wishes.

Feedback from several partners was very positive about how the home engaged with them. One visiting professional stated that a person’s health had improved as the staff at the home followed recommendations and would seek out advise from the right professionals.

The provider had a clear process in place to ensure people’s care and support needs were met when moving between services. Regular referrals were made to health care professionals in a timely manner. This meant people could be confident that their care needs would be met seamlessly when moving from one service to another.

People were protected from poor care and treatment because staff followed professional instructions and guidance, which was provided to keep people safe. People confirmed that they felt safe living in the home. One person told us, “Yes, I am safe all good, I have no problems at all, I am well looked after.” Relatives told us the overall care was good and that their relatives were protected from harm. One relative said, “I am very happy with the care [my relative] is contented with the routine.”

Staff told us they had received safeguarding training and were able to explain their responsibilities about raising concerns. One staff member said, “If needed you can raise a safeguarding to the Police, the safeguarding team the numbers are on the wall in the service, of course you would inform the manager first and CQC and Local authority also need to be notified.” Staff we spoke with were able to give examples of potential abuse and explain how and when they would act.

During our visit to the home, we observed staff interactions with people. Staff were kind and caring taking time to talk to people. We observed good safe practices when staff were supporting people with various tasks or duties.

The provider had an effective system in place to ensure safeguarding concerns were identified and investigated. Staff received training in safeguarding and how to recognise signs of abuse. This meant people could be confident that staff had the skills needed to protect them from harm or abuse.

People were assured that risks to their health, safety and wellbeing were appropriately managed and mitigated.

Staff told us they were aware of peoples care plans and risk assessments.

We observed staff using the correct techniques when supporting people in the home. For example, using the correct equipment when needed such as a standing aid. This was done safely, and staff were observant of any potential hazards when operating equipment.

The provider had a clear system in place to support people to manage risks. Care plans outlined how to mitigate risks of harm to people. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs. People were involved in their care plans and risk plans.

People benefitted from being cared for and supported in a safe environment that was designed to meet their needs.

Staff told us the home is clean and well maintained.

During our visit we noted the home was very clean and well maintained. People’s bedrooms were personalised and tidy/clean. All equipment observed was in good condition and clean. This meant people could be assured that they would not be put at risk of harm due to an unsafe environment.

The provider had a clear and effective system in place to ensure the home environment was safe and equipped to meet people’s needs.

People and relatives told us there was enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.

Staff and leaders told us there was enough staff on shift to ensure people’s needs were met.

Whilst in the home we noted that people did not have to wait for care or support. This was because there was enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs when required.

The provider had a clear system in place to ensure staff had the required level of training and induction to carry out their roles effectively. Background checks were carried out prior to staff taking up their employment. This meant people could be confident that staff had been vetted and supervised during the beginning of their employment.

People and relatives told us the home was very clean.

Staff told us they understood how to prevent the spread of infection. For example, using personal protective equipment when needed such as gloves.

During our visit we noted that the home was very clean. We observed the communal areas, bedrooms and dining areas. All were clean and free from any malodours. This meant people would be safe from the risk of infections.

The provider had processes in place to manage infection prevention and control. There were policies and procedures in place to give staff guidance when needed. Staff had training in the prevention of infections. Audits were carried out regularly and were shortfalls were found actions were taken and recorded. Information was also shared with team in meetings. As a result, people were safe from the risk of infection.

People had up to date care plans which detailed their needs and how staff should support them to get the most benefit out of their medication. Allergies were recorded in the care plan and administration charts. Peoples’ medicines were available and in stock. People received their medicines as prescribed. Peoples’ medicines were reviewed regularly, including people on high risk medications. People’s behaviour was not inappropriately controlled with use of medicines.

Staff described the process they would follow if a medicine incident occurred. Service leaders told us there had been no recent reported medicines incidents.

Staff told us how they reconcile medicines when people first move to the home to ensure they have the correct medicines to administer to people. Staff received medicines training and were assessed to ensure they were competent to handle and administer medicines.

The service had a strong relationship with local services. They were supported by the local pharmacy, GP and the local enhanced care home team. We saw evidence of a new recent external pharmacist audits being completed with actions identified which included areas we found on inspection. However, this process and relationship was not yet embedded.

There was a medicines policy in place that clearly outlined staffs’ responsibilities. The service conducted audits to ensure staff were handling and administering medicines in line with the company’s policy. However, the audit did not identify all areas of concern that were highlighted on the assessment, including ensuring staff administered topical medications in line with national and manufacturers guidance. This was raised with the service to action.

Medicines, including controlled drugs were stored securely. However, staff and leaders were not able to describe or demonstrate how to assure themselves that all medicines were being stored safely within manufacturers guidelines, including medicines that required refrigeration. Staff described the process of destroying controlled drugs. However, we saw that there was not always a record of the person witnessing the destruction of patients own controlled drugs which was not line with the services policy.

People received their medicines on time. However, the service relied on staff knowledge to support people on time critical medicines. Whilst we did not see any evidence of harm, the service told us after the inspection that they had introduced new measures to support staff administering time critical medicines, including Parkinsons medication.