Ottley House

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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The registered manager was approachable and visible in the home. One person said, “I can’t remember the manager’s name, but I see him quite a lot, he comes round. I would be able to approach the manager and the staff if I had concerns but they come to visit quite a lot anyway. I don’t think they could do anything better here, everything is fine and if I need anything, they’re always there.” A relative told us, “[Name of registered manager] is very approachable and if I had any concerns, which I don’t, I would discuss with them.” Accidents, incidents and complaints were regularly reviewed. Any learning from incidents was shared with staff and action was taken to reduce the risk of them happening again.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

People had their needs assessed before they moved to the service to ensure their needs and aspirations could be met. Staff arranged for any regular medical treatments to be carried on at the home when someone moved in to ensure they received the care and treatment they needed. One person told us, “They [staff] phone the GP on Wednesday and discuss any changes. They tell the GP if we’re not well. I suppose I would be confident they would contact any health professionals. I am going to have a [procedure] this afternoon.” A relative said, “I was involved in all decisions about my [relative’s] care and staff have supported us with changes we as a family have made. We can relax knowing that both [relatives] are safe and cared for in the home.” Up to date information about people was available to take with them if they moved or were admitted to hospital.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff interacted with people in a kind and respectful manner. People told us they felt safe living at the home and with the staff who supported them. One person said, “I have never felt unsafe at all. The carers have never done anything they shouldn’t.” Staff told us they had received training about how to recognise and report abuse. They knew how and when to report concerns both internally and to other organisations such as the local authority, CQC and the police. There were systems in place to ensure all staff received training and regular refresher training in safeguarding adults from abuse. Safeguarding incidents were reported, recorded and investigated. A professional told us, “We feel [the provider] responded swiftly to the safeguarding concern raised by a family in January 2025.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risks to people were assessed and a plan of care was in place to guide staff how to support people in a safe way. Equipment was provided where required to ensure identified risks were minimised. This included moving and handling equipment and pressure relieving mattresses and cushions. People were supported by staff who knew the individual risks and assisted them in the least restrictive way possible whilst minimising the potential for harm. One person said, “I have a hoist, and I do feel safe when they’re hoisting me. The staff know what they’re doing and seem well trained. There are always 2 staff when helping me.” People were not subjected to any unlawful restrictive practices and were supported to live the life they wanted. A relative told us, “The staff always tell my [relative] what they are going to do. They have dementia and sometimes resist however staff reassure them and help them to understand. I have never been aware of the staff making my [relative] do something they don’t want to do. They respect their wishes.”

The provider assessed and mitigated potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People lived in a home which was safely maintained and designated staff completed regular checks on the physical environment and equipment to minimise the potential for harm. We observed people who were able moving freely around the home. Grab rails were available to assist people and staff ensured the environment was free from trip hazards.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

People lived in a home where there were enough skilled and experienced staff to meet their needs. One person told us, “The staff are very nice indeed. There are enough staff here and there’s always someone there when I call them.” A relative said, “The staff at Ottley House care deeply. They are brilliant and they have the training and the skills needed.” Staff worked together to make sure people received their care and support safely. There were systems in place to ensure staffing levels met the changing needs and number of people who lived in the home. Staff were recruited safely and there were effective systems in place to ensure staff received up to date training relevant to their role and regular supervisions. There were systems in place to ensure nurses maintained up to date registration with the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

All areas of the home were clean and fresh. A relative told us, “I am very satisfied with the infection, prevention and control measures and believe the cleanliness of the home to be excellent.” Appropriate steps had been taken to minimise the risks of the spread of infection. Staff had received training in infection prevention and control, and they had access to personal protective equipment (PPE). There were audits and checks in place to ensure staff followed correct procedures. During our visit we observed staff using PPE appropriately. Staff told us they had access to good supplies of PPE.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

People received their medicines when they needed them from staff who were trained and competent in their role. One person said, “The nurse administers my medicines. One nurse does this every time.” A relative told us, “Medicines are administered properly by qualified nursing staff at regular times.” When staff administered medicines, their time was protected which reduced the risk of errors. There were policies and procedures in place for the safe management and administration of people’s medicines and these were understood and followed by staff. Medicines were stored securely and there were systems in place to ensure people always had sufficient supplies of their medicines. There were regular stock checks and audits to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. There were protocols in place for medicines prescribed on an ‘as required’ basis which helped to ensure staff followed a consistent approach and people received their medicines when needed.