Haywood Lodge

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. A member of staff told us, “We [staff] get a handover in the morning, they always tell us if someone fell and what they could do to prevent it happening again.” People who had sustained falls told us potential reasons for their fall had been discussed with them. A relative told us that following their family member sustaining a fall, staff had reviewed the layout of their bedroom to give the person more space. This relative also commented, “If there are any problems, they are straight on the phone to me.” In some cases, additional equipment or mobility aids were used to minimise the risks of falling.

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. When people were admitted to hospital, information was shared so other healthcare professionals understood people’s risks, support needs and preferences for future care. One senior member of staff explained, “We print off a hospital pack which has got everything the person has done in the last 24 hours, their RESPECT form (end of life wishes) and we photocopy the medicine administration records.” People told us if they needed emergency support, this was arranged without delay. Staff said they were informed verbally of people’s needs before they moved in and were able to read people’s initial care records. One staff member said, “We have care plans when someone new comes in, we all have a chat about it, the small things such as how they like their coffee with sugar or the time they want to wake up.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from harassment, abuse and neglect. People told us they felt safe living at Haywood Lodge. One person told us they felt safe because of, “The way they go about things, and they will listen to you.” When we asked another person if they felt safe, they responded, “Of course. Nothing is too much trouble.” A third person explained they felt safe because of the security of the home. People told us they would raise any concerns directly with managers or speak to their family members. One relative told us, “I feel [Name] is safe. I would be the first one to pick up on something.” Staff had received training in safeguarding people from harm, discrimination and abuse. Staff told us they would not hesitate to report any poor practice or suspected abuse to senior staff and managers. One staff member told us, “We did safeguarding training, we were given scenarios and what to do in a situation and the best way to act and not to be impulsive, the training was really good I learnt quite a lot.”

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 told us risks were managed well. One person explained how staff had sat with them to explain their increased risk of falling when they chose not to use their walking frame. This person told us, “I promised I wouldn’t go anywhere without this frame.” Another person told us how staff support to manage their risk of falls had reduced as they gained more strength and increased mobility. They explained, “At one stage they really helped me, but now I am fairly independent. They walk by my side and hold my elbow.” People told us, and we saw, equipment to support people’s mobility was placed near them and in easy reach. Staff shared examples of known risks to people living at the service. Staff told us risk assessments included measures on how to manage risks such as regular checks on people to ensure they remained safe.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology such as acoustic monitoring supported the delivery of safe care. The home was purpose built; rooms were spacious, and doorways and corridors were wide enough for people using wheelchairs or mobility aids. All bedrooms had an en suite bathroom, and some rooms had direct access to outside space. If people required specialist equipment to promote their independence, this was provided as necessary. The layout of the home considered people’s needs to ensure by making sure equipment not in use was stored safely and out of sight. The servicing of specialist equipment was managed and staff regularly checked equipment was clean and fit for use. The provider had processes to ensure the premises and equipment were regularly checked and maintained in good order, including fire safety checks. There was a commitment from staff and the provider to ensure people benefitted from living in a safe environment. For example, during our visit we found some fire doors required minor adjustment. The provider took action immediately to rectify this before we left, to further reduce any risk to people.

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. Whilst people and their relatives did not feel staffing levels were unsafe, some people did remark that staff were very busy. Comments included, “Sometimes there are more than enough and other times it is adequate” and “I have never had an issue where I think it is unsafe; you just feel that if they had a few more staff, they would not be rushed off their feet.” People were confident staff understood how to meet their needs and told us they responded quickly if they used their call bells to request assistance. One person told us, “If you ring the bell, they are there in a flash.” One staff member told us, “Some days better than others but there are enough staff.” The registered manager was confident staff numbers were correct and regular checks of people’s needs made sure staff numbers met people’s needs. The provider operated safe recruitment processes. Safe recruitment checks Included undertaking checks such as references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. This information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. People and relatives told us that staff attending to them would wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). Staff confirmed they had completed training and always had access to supplies of PPE. People and their relatives commented on the standards of cleanliness in the home. One person told us, “The place is spotlessly clean.” A relative commented, “It is lovely every time you come in.” We saw staff followed good hand hygiene practices and wore personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriate to the tasks they carried out. Staff followed a process to ensure other staff and visitors were aware if a person developed an infectious illness, so extra precautions could be taken to avoid cross contamination. For example, a recent flu outbreak meant staff wore PPE to reduce risks of cross infection to keep people and each other safe. Processes made sure all areas of the home had suitable furnishings which were cleaned and well maintained. Clinical waste was disposed of in line with good practice guidelines.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People raised no concerns about the management of their medicines or the availability of pain relief when they needed it. One person told us, “They adhere to the rules very strictly. This morning, I was lying in bed, they came in with my tub of tablets and they said I have to watch you to make sure you are taking them.” One relative told us how their family member’s prescriptions had recently been reviewed and commented, “They said they would get the doctor in to talk to [Name] to explain what they were doing, why they were doing it and what the problems were.” Staff who administered people’s medicines told us they had received training in safe medicines management and had their competencies to give medicines safely assessed. Overall, records demonstrated safe medicines practices, and that people received their medicines as prescribed. However, we found records to support the administration of ‘as required’ medicines to support people’s mental and emotional wellbeing lacked sufficient detail. There was not always a clear rationale for why the medicines had been administered to ensure they had been given as a last resort. The provider had identified this as an area for improvement. They were implementing a new policy to provide greater oversight and support a robust review of the administration of these medicines by internal and external clinicians.