Goldwell Manor Care Home

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 [add rating]. At this assessment the rating has remained/changed to [add rating].

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 84 (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 strong proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and complete honesty. Staff actively listened to concerns about safety and thoroughly investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Staff fully understood their responsibilities to report any concerns. They were confident that the registered manager and provider would listen and act upon these. The registered manager and provider thoroughly investigated accidents and incidents to determine the actions that may be required to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. Any changes to people’s care planning and risk management had been promptly made and shared with the wider staff team. We found staff were also proactive in sharing their learning on what worked well when supporting people. For example, staff made suggestions at handover and in staff meetings on strategies that worked well in supporting people and on the day to day ways of working.

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’s needs were thoroughly assessed prior to them using the service to ensure their needs could be safely met. Key information was sought from the person, their relatives and any external professionals involved in the person’s care to enable a positive transition into the service. We also found assessments continued following people’s admission to ensure the service had accurate and up to date information on people's needs and preferences.

Staff worked in partnership with other professionals such as GP’s and community nurses to support people to promptly access healthcare when required. We also found when people’s needs had changed the service had engaged promptly with many external professionals to ensure the person’s needs were met and understood. We observed a person who had recently moved into Goldwell Manor Care Home, meeting and participating in a session with people and staff. The registered manager told this was an orientation session which was offered to people when they moved in. The session was to get to know people and staff, and this aided their transition and supported them to build relationships with others.

The provider worked well with people and healthcare partners to fully understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff had a clear focus 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 always shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. People and their relatives felt the service was safe. A relative told us, “It is really easy to talk to any of the staff if I notice something that needs doing differently. They make it very easy to speak up and always respond quickly.” Staff demonstrated an excellent knowledge of how to recognise signs of abuse and how to safeguard people if they had any concerns. One staff member told us, “The safeguarding training was very good, it’s important we all know what to do, the training covered abuse, what to do and how to report this”. The registered manager demonstrated a commitment to raising safeguarding awareness, this topic featured as a discussion point in staff and resident meetings so everyone was aware of what they could do if they had safeguarding concern. When safeguarding incidents had occurred, the registered manager had thoroughly investigated these incidents and had promptly taken action to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. The provider also analysed this information to ensure their policies and procedure were followed. The service had a safeguarding lead who made sure information on safeguarding was accessible and available throughout the service, they also were a point of contact for people, their relatives and staff who had had any concerns or required further information.

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

Risks which affected people's daily lives, in relation to their mobility, nutrition and management of health conditions were documented and known by staff. The management team monitored and regularly assessed these risks and took appropriate actions to ensure people received care in a safe and consistent way. People and their relatives were involved in care planning and regular review of people’s care took place. A relative told us, “I have attended 3 reviews since [person] has been here. I have absolutely no concerns, they always cater for their needs”. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and how to positively support them with their known risks. Staff told us how they had supported people who had experienced a fall which included the seeking medical advice and monitoring for any changes in their presentation. The provider also had technology in place to support people who had consented to use of sensors in their environment, this maximised people’s safety by alerting staff to their movements.

The provider was fully aware of all potential risks in the care environment and controlled them well. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

We found the service to be exceptionally clean and well maintained. The provider had many systems in place to ensure the environment was regularly checked for any hazards, this included daily walkarounds and audits. We found all health and safety compliance certificates were in place and up to date. Emergency evacuation drills were regularly carried out with all staff and people had personal emergency evacuations in place to support the safe evacuation of people from the building in an emergency. We found the environment to be spacious and had many areas for people spend time. Objects of interest, activities, books and games were seen throughout the service. Technology was found throughout the service to support people, for example information was electronically displayed to show people and visitors which staff were on shift, what the menu options for the day were and the activities that were planned.

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

People, their relatives and staff told us there was enough staff available to meet people's needs. One relative told us, “They are very good and respond promptly. I am very happy with the care [person] gets here”.

We observed staff being proactive in anticipating people’s needs and providing people with assistance when this was required. We observed staff to use their skills and knowledge when supporting people living with dementia in a kind and dignified manner. The provider regularly reviewed staffing to ensure there was always enough staff available, staff confirmed this and told us when a people’s needs had changed staffing was increased to reflect this. Staff had been recruited safely and safer recruitment processes had been followed to ensure people were suitable for their roles. Staff received a comprehensive induction when joining the service and ongoing training to support them in their roles. Staff spoke positively about the training they had received, one staff member told us, “The training has been brilliant, it’s in-depth and you can ask questions”. Staff received checks of their competency to ensure they carried out their roles safely.

People were actively involved in the provider’s recruitment process. We found people were supported with interviewing potential new staff and their views were an integral part of the selection process.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. We found the service to be exceptionally clean and people spoke positively about the cleanliness of the service. One person told us, “It is very clean here, they always knock and ask if they can come in to clean.” We observed staff to follow the infection, prevention and control measures in place and staff demonstrated a good understanding of their role in reducing the transmission of infection. People’s care plans included information on their individual risk of infections and the signs staff should be aware of to indicate they may be unwell. The provider had systems and processes in place to ensure infection, prevention and control measures were regularly audited. We found their infection, control and prevention policy in date and the service had an infection, prevention and control lead who was a point of contact in the service for advice and how the processes in place were managed.

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.

Medicines were safely managed and were administered by trained staff who received regular checks and direct observation of their practice. Stock levels corresponded with the records in place and audits of medicine administration records were conducted regularly by the management team and provider.

The service ensured people's behaviour was not controlled by excessive and inappropriate use of medicines. Staff ensured that people's medicines were reviewed by prescribers and provided us with evidence of where a person’s medicines had been reduced following effective strategies being developed by staff to reduce the person’s feelings of distress. People and their relatives talked positively about their experience of how staff managed medicines. One person told us, “I get offered paracetamol if I need it for a headache. They always ask.” And a relative told us, “They are good with [person]. They sometimes refuse their medication, so they go away then they come back to [person] later by which time they will usually take it”.