Chalkhill Road

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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection, the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. We assessed 8 quality statements from this key question. We found that people were protected from harm. Staff were recruited safely. The service had an open culture and made sure they learned lessons from mistakes or when things went wrong. People told us they felt safe living at the service. Health and safety was well managed and monitored. The environment was well maintained and clean.

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 staff member said, “We discuss incidents and accidents during team meetings and find ways to minimise them from happening again in the future.” The service had clear records of accidents and incidents and record any lessons learned.

The service 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. Managers planned and organised care and support with people, together with partners and relatives in ways that ensured continuity. Managers explained information from partners was reviewed and the needs of prospective service users assessed prior to any decision about whether or not the care home could safely meet those needs was taken. These assessments were used as the basis to develop person-centred care plans for everyone who lived or stayed at the care home.

Training records showed that staff had received safeguarding training. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of what actions to take if they had any concerns. A staff member said, “I would always report to the manager or deputy manager but could also contact the police or CQC. I am confident that the manager would sort it out.” The registered manager was the safeguarding lead for the service and provided reassurance to us that they would report and respond to all safeguarding incidents appropriately and timely to ensure people who used the service were protected from harm and abuse. People who used the service told us that they felt safe at Chalkhill. A person said, “I feel safe here, everyone feels safe due to the staff.”

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. Staff were aware of the risks people might face and the steps they needed to take to prevent or safely manage them. Staff told us they always followed people’s risk assessments to enable people to take reasonable and acceptable risks. A member of staff said, “We would review risk assessments every three months or more frequently if people’s needs have changed.”

Since our last inspection in 2020 the provider had undertaken a full refurbishment of the premises. The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. The provider made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The service had worked to support access to a bespoke and specialised living space for a person, designed to promote their safety, independence and privacy. People’s homes were well maintained, and the environment was safe. Regular maintenance checks such as fire safety and fire evacuation drills were completed. There were personal emergency evacuation plans in place to help staff evacuate people in an emergency.

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. People told us there were always enough staff available to support them. The registered manager said they regularly reviewed staffing levels to ensure there were always enough suitably experienced and trained staff on duty to meet people’s needs. A relative said, “The staff levels within the home I would say they have enough staff across all shifts to support residents to my knowledge.” The provider conducted thorough checks on staff that applied to work at the service to make sure they were fit to support vulnerable adults. This included checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) who provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Staff received relevant training to support them in their roles. An external professional told us, “Staff are well trained and do really understand the people they support.”

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. The care home looked and smelt clean throughout. Staff had received up to date infection control and food hygiene training people said was reflected in their work practices. This included frequent washing of hands and using hand gel. Staff told us they had access to adequate supplies of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). A care staff said, “We have hand sanitisers throughout the home and have always access to gloves. The home is always very clean.”

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. Medicines were safely managed. There were systems for ordering, administering and monitoring of medicines. Staff were trained and deemed competent before they administered medicines. Medicines were safely secured, and records were appropriately kept. We found that room and fridge temperatures were appropriately monitored. The provider had a system to monitor and audit people’s medicines on a regular basis and we found that improvements had been made as a result of this. For example, a weekly audit by the provider was carried out to ensure medicines were up to date and appropriate for people. We were assured that medicines related incidents were investigated properly with appropriate action plans and there were processes in place to ensure staff learned from these incidents to prevent them occurring again. People received their medicines as prescribed. A relative said, “He is support ed with medication the staff at the home make arrangements and support him with attending his monthly depot.” We looked at 4 people’s medicines and found no discrepancies in the recording of medicines administered. This provided a level of assurance that people received their medicines safely, consistently and as prescribed. There were separate charts for people who had medicines such as patches, ointments and creams prescribed to them (such as pain relief patches). There was an appropriate medicines policy in place. Furthermore, medicines for waste were disposed of regularly and appropriate records were made. During the inspection, we saw several instances of where people were prescribed PRN (as required) medicines and there were associated PRN protocols in place. This meant we had assurance that staff were able to administer these types of medicines effectively to people using the service.