Layston Grove 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

People felt safe at the service. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns about people’s safety and welfare.

People’s care was given in accordance with individual risks. Staff were seen working safely in most cases.

Most people and relatives felt there were enough trained staff to meet their needs. At times they felt it was stretched.



Medicines and infection control was managed safely.

There was learning and actions from any incidents and accidents to help reduce the risks.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Relatives felt they were kept informed, and they were listened to, with any needed actions taken. A relative said, “My relative has been in the home nearly [number] years and I have come to know the manager & the management team very well. They do a fantastic job keeping relatives informed via email & face to face meetings. I am confident to raise any concerns with them, as I know they will be dealt with & advise me. I feel [registered manager] runs the home well, with regular relative’s meetings they ask for our views. They keep us updated with changes in the home.”

Staff told us learning was shared through meetings and a messaging system. A staff member said, “They (management) keep us informed.”

Learning was taken and shared with the staff team. Reflective practice sessions were carried out with staff when shortfalls had been identified.

People and relatives felt the move into the service had been good.

Staff told us there were handovers at every shift change where important information was shared.

Healthcare professionals told us the team worked with them. They told us people’s health conditions had improved as they worked together

People received a preadmission assessment prior to moving in. Records were held on file and information was to be shared with healthcare professionals as needed.

People told us they felt safe. A person said, “I feel safe here, the staff have listened to me.” Relatives also felt their family members were safe living at the service.

Staff told us they knew how to recognise, and respond to, abuse. A staff member said, “I know how to report, there is a poster with council number. I can speak up.” Staff told us they would speak up when needed. Some staff us they had spoken up with a concern in the past.

We saw while staff were kind in their approach, at times they didn’t listen to people. For example, they would ask if someone was ok but did not wait to listen to their response. This needed development so staff did not miss important information. People were relaxed and comfortable with staff.

Safeguarding concerns were processed, reported and recorded appropriately. Staff received training and information was displayed around the home. However, we noted a person had bruising to both their hands, this was not noted in their care plan, or in any accident logs. We raised this with the management team who told us this bruising had been missed in the records but advised of steps to mitigate bruising already in place and further actions to be taken.

People told us they felt staff supported them safely. However, some people gave mixed feedback. A person said, “I would like to get out of bed. I call the buzzer, but people do not come. I feel stuck in bed sometimes and I tried to get out of bed and hit my head.” The person had an injury on their head. We followed this up with the management team who told us the person had fallen from bed and now had a bed low to the floor in case of a reoccurrence. A relative told us, “I feel my relatives needs are met and they are safe when being cared for by the staff.”

Staff were aware of hazards and how to reduce these. Staff had attended fire drills and practiced evacuation in the event of an emergency. Some staff told us they were due to attend a fire drill. A staff member said, “I think it was over a year ago.”

Staff were working safely in most cases. We saw staff supporting people to move around safely, respond to calls for assistance and carry out regular checks. Staff ensured people were sat up when eating. There were sensor mats, low beds in place and call bells accessible for those who were able to use one. However, 1 person’s call bell wouldn’t activate until the person came out of their room. 1 person was observed to be transferred with a hoist, and this was not done well. The person was left sitting unevenly in their wheelchair and practice meant they could be at risk of injury. The person was noted to have skin tears and bruises in places which correspond with moving and handling injuries. We raised this with the management team who told us about the action taken to safely manage this person’s moving and handling needs already in place and further actions they would now take.

People had individual risk assessments, and these gave guidance and regularly reviewed.

People told us they felt safe and comfortable living at the service. They told us they enjoyed the facilities and could move around freely. A person said, “Its number 1 here.” People who were at risk of falls had low beds and mats on the floor to reduce the risk of injury should they fall from bed.

Staff were aware of hazards and how to reduce these. Staff had attended fire drills and practiced evacuation in the event of an emergency. Some staff told us they were due to attend a fire drill. A staff member said, “I think it was over a year ago.”

The environment was free from hazards and fire safety equipment was in place. One cupboard labelled ‘keep locked’ containing supplies, was unlocked. People had access to call bells and the home was well maintained. The service had areas so people could have privacy if required, such as lounges, small areas such as tea rooms and seating areas. We observed people being able to move around the home freely.

There were regular checks carried out on the environment and equipment to help ensure the appropriate servicing was carried out and everything was in working order.

There was ongoing work to ensure all portable equipment had been visually checked and tested. This had been flagged as not being completed.

Governance checks also showed that refresher fire drills were due. There was no date for full completion. However, there was a plan in progress for a health and safety coordinator who was completing training to provide a fire drill programme. This programme was in the process of being implemented.

People said there were mostly enough staff to meet their needs. They said at times they needed to wait for support. A person said, “All the staff have been lovely. They are there if I need help. I would go out to get them. I do not have a call bell. They do not come into my room, they probably would if you badger them.” Another person said, “If I need help and staff are not around, I would shout out loud for them to help me.” A third person said, “It is very good. I am happy, the staff help me when I need it.”

Relatives said they felt there were mostly enough staff, and staff were trained for their role. A relative said, “I feel sometimes the staff seem very stretched. However, they are always polite. The care my relative receives is very personal from what I see, some of the carers treat her like their own relative, so caring & kind.” Some relatives told us agency staff that were used at times were not of the same standard as permanent staff.

Some staff told us that at peak times, such as mornings and mealtimes, it could be busier, especially on the units where people needed 2 staff to support them. A staff member said, “On the top floor it is very busy.” Another staff member said, “On the middle floor there are a lot of people who need 2 staff and if 1 staff member is doing medicines there is no staff available to supervise the lounge.”

Most staff felt they received enough training to carry out their role. However, some staff said the provider’s new online training system was difficult to understand.

Staff were visible and prompt when people requested support. However, we noted that staff missed key observations such as people with toast in their laps and a person who had lost a slipper. We also noted that a person was brought back to the table for lunch when they had just left the table 20 minutes previously when they had finished their breakfast. They said they felt wobbly and didn’t know what was happening, but staff didn’t acknowledge this. There were a number of people who did not eat their lunch as breakfast had not long been eaten. This meant some staffing practice was task led and not always attentive and person led.

We reviewed the training matrix and saw most training was completed and in date. Recruitment was carried out through an online recruitment system which did not move candidates forward until all sections and checks were completed.

People’s bedrooms and communal areas were kept clean for people.

Staff knew how to practice good infection prevention and control (IPC).

Staff were practicing good infection prevention and control (IPC) in their tasks. We observed correct handwashing and use of personal protective equipment (PPE).

There were audits of IPC in the home.

People received their medicines in accordance with their needs and as the prescriber intended. Staff were carrying out administration tasks safely and in a timely manner.

Staff responsible for managing medicines were aware of safe practice. We discussed time sensitive medicines with a staff member responsible for administering medicines.

Systems were in place to help ensure safe management of medicines. We reviewed a sample of audits and found these were checking the appropriate elements and identified any actions needed.