Woodroffe Benton 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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. Accidents and incidents were documented and escalated to the registered manager for further investigation when required. Actions were identified to reduce the possibility of reoccurrence and were cascaded to the staff team. The registered manager held a log to identify any emerging patterns of accidents, incidents and near misses. We were made aware of a complaint the service had received and noted the registered manager’s response was comprehensive, we saw actions taken to address the complaint had been put in place. The registered manager carried out their responsibilities under the duty of candour and was open with the complainant and apologised when things had gone wrong.

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. Pre-admission assessments were completed face to face prior to people moving into the service, assessments included information from people, their relatives and healthcare professionals. A person who was due to move into the service requested to bring their own double bed, the registered manager ensured this was possible by providing a large enough bedroom. The registered manager had spoken with the person’s specialist nurse to ensure their specific health condition symptoms could be managed by staff and that staff would know who to contact if additional support was required. One person told us, "Before I came here, I had ended up in hospital from falls, [another person] was here already, so it was recommended to us. I was able to personalise my room, brought stuff from home."

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. Improvements had been made to the provider’s safeguarding processes. People told us they felt safe, a person said, “Oh yes, I do (feel safe).” Staff were aware of signs to watch out for if they suspected people were at risk of harm or abuse and knew how to raise their concerns within the service and to external professional agencies if needed. A large print safeguarding policy was displayed for people and staff to follow. Staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where people had a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) in place, conditions to their authorisations were being met. The management team now maintained oversight to ensure DoLS authorisations were in date and any imposed conditions were incorporated into people’s care plans and were being met.

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. People’s care records were mostly up to date, we identified a person’s care records were inconsistent in some areas, however, this did not impact the person’s support and the registered manager addressed the contradictions during our assessment. People’s care plans included health risks, such as, Parkinson’s disease and detailed what equipment people required, for example, hoists and stand aids. A relative spoke of how they were involved in their loved one’s care plans and said, “The home have worked with me and made sure that [person] gets a rest in the afternoon on their bed with their legs raised as [person] suffers from fluid retention. The home had put a pressure mat by their bed which gives me reassurance.” People were able to make decisions and where risks had been identified, they had been manged well. For example, a person had a detailed risk assessment to enable them to smoke cigarettes safely; staff were aware of the safety measures.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The maintenance team followed schedules to ensure health and safety checks were completed and responded promptly to areas identified as requiring upgrades or repair. Corridors were clear and people were observed to independently move from room to room. Bedroom doors had people's names and a picture of them to help them identify their spaces. There was dementia friendly signage around the service, for example, bathroom doors had pictures of a toilet and bath on them. Safety measures for emergency situations were established; personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) were in place for people and easily accessible should the need for an evacuation arise.

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. All relevant pre-employment recruitment checks were carried out prior to staff employment. We saw records of ongoing staff support and supervision. Staff told us about the training offered, one said, “I have been learning a lot. I have been having training and I have learned new development skills for myself.” A visiting health care professional told us, “They have a had a lot of training, such as, moving and handling, this is conducted nearly once a month. The management identify people (staff) who need more training and ask them to attend.”

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. Regular checks and audits were completed to ensure staff followed the provider’s infection prevention and control policies to keep people safe and the service clean. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available, we observed staff used and disposed of PPE appropriately. Housekeeping staff were observed to be working hard to ensure people’s bedrooms and communal spaces were clean and tidy.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. We found marked improvements in the safe and effective use of medicines. There was a policy in place to support the safe and effective use of medicines. Staff received regular training and competency checks. Agency staff were given training and time to shadow staff to ensure they were competent and confident to administer medicines. Where people were prescribed ‘when required’ (PRN) medicines, these were used appropriately. Staff had access to person-centred PRN protocols which provided them with information that helped them to make informed decisions about when and how to give a PRN medicine. People prescribed time sensitive medicines, such as those used to manage Parkinson’s disease always received these on time. There were robust processes in place to ensure these medicines were given as prescribed in a timely manner. Care plans and risk assessments included relevant information about a person’s medicines and how the service would support them to manage their health needs with their medicines.