Adswood 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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

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 provider shared lessons learnt with staff and information about good practice was readily available throughout the home. For example, there were various display boards with information including managing specific health needs and conditions and information within staff areas. Staff told us communication within the home worked well and they had up to date information about any changes in people’s need or lessons learnt following incidents. The management team held daily meetings to ensure oversight of the service and the day to day running of each unit. The registered manager and clinical lead were proactive in seeking feedback and opportunities to learn and improve the service.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They ensured there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Staff has good working relationships with other services and knew people and their needs well. People and families told us they were confident staff would take action where additional advice and support was needed, for example if a person became unwell. Records showed that where advice was given from external partners, this was incorporated in to care plans and how care was delivered.

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. People told us they felt safe when supported by the staff at Adswood lodge. One person commented, “I am well looked after and I feel safe. There is always plenty of staff around.” Staff completed training and understood their responsibility to safeguard people. The provider had suitable policies in place and any concerns were investigated to ensure lessons were learnt and risk was mitigated.

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. The provider took a positive and proactive approach to risk. People’s views and aspirations were sought and opportunities to increase independence and community engagement were explored. People’s needs and risks were fully assessed and regularly reviewed. Care plans were implemented to guide staff on how a person wanted to be supported with their needs. People and families told us they were involved in the development of care plans and happy with the support being provided by staff. Professionals commented that the service supported people living with a range of complex needs very effectively. One professional commented, “Staff are very responsive to risk and take the action needed.”

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 environment was clean and tidy and people commented that domestic staff worked hard to address any concerns about the environment. Maintenance staff were on site and available to address matters on a day to day basis and systems for checks and external maintenance were in place including the statutory requirements for checks of lifting equipment and electrical items. The provider had systems to ensure daily checks of the environment to identify any hazards were identified and addressed. People were supported to make their bedrooms personalised and homely. The provider was in the process of reviewing ways in which the home’s environment could be adapted to ensure it maximised on best practice for people living with dementia.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development and had been suitably recruited. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Staff recruitment processes were generally suitable with relevant checks of staff’s employment history, character, right to work, and checks with the disclosure and barring service (DBS). We noted further work could be undertaken in relation to people with a history of working in care and exploring reasons for people leaving previous employment. People spoke highly of the staff team. Staff we spoke with were very committed and passionate about the work they did at Adswood Lodge. Staffing levels at the home were very high due to the complexity of people’s needs and the feedback we received from people, families and professionals indicated that overall staff were responsive and available. Staff accessed a range of training, and checks of their skills and understanding were completed. One member of staff commented, “The availability of various training opportunities on online platforms has been particularly helpful in enhancing my skills and knowledge.” People commented they felt safe when being supported by staff and we observed staff apply safe principles of moving and handling when supporting people.

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. People commented that the home was clean and tidy and domestic staff worked hard to maintain the level of cleanliness. The provider had a system in place to check that good infection control practices were followed and policies and staff training were in place. We observed staff made full use of personal protective equipment (PPE) to maintain good standards of infection control.

Staff made sure that medicines and treatments met people’s needs. Care plans were in place but care records did not always contain enough person centred detail. People’s medicines were safely stored and people were receiving their medicines as prescribed. Staff received appropriate training and were assessed to ensure they were competent to provide this type of support. We observed staff supported people to take their medicines in a kind way and with patience. We noted some areas for improvement in relation to the record keeping, personalisation and the detail contained within care plans and medication administration records. This included the need for further detail around medicines only given occasionally when needed (PRN); medicines with variable doses; or for people who required their medicines to modified, such as medicines which needed to be crushed for people who could not take their medicines orally or people who took medicines covertly hidden in food and drink.