Ruddington Manor Care Centre

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 received safe care and support from appropriately trained staff. Risks were identified, recorded and mitigated within care plans whilst ensuring people remained as independent as possible. People and their relatives said they felt safe and knew how to raise their concerns if the need arose. People were supported to receive their medicine safely and in a timely manner.

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Everyone we spoke to said they felt safe living at Ruddington Manor Care Centre. People and relatives said they knew how to raise concerns and would feel confident to do so if the need arose.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and knew how to keep people safe from harm. For example, staff were able to describe when and why people had a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) in place and how to report their concerns if needed. DoLS is the procedure prescribed in law when it is necessary to deprive a person of their liberty, who lacks capacity to consent to their care and treatment to keep them safe from harm.

We observed staff interacting and supporting a person who had a DoLS in place with safeguards in relation to fluid and nutrition. The staff member continued to support and encourage the person to make their own decisions by offering choice. For example, they supported the person to choose a meal by showing them sample plates and describing the taste of the food.

Policies and guidance were in place to support staff in identifying and raising their concerns regarding people’s safety. We saw management had a log that monitored when these concerns were raised and actions that had been taken to mitigate risk to people. We saw evidence that these logs were evaluated by the registered manager and the appropriate notifications to the local authority and CQC were made.

People and their relatives told us they were supported to managed risks. People told us they were included in their care plan creation, and these were updated regularly to ensure risks were identified and mitigated. One person said, “I am included in my care plan, the manager sat with me and we discussed everything.” A person described being supported with a call bell and a sensor in their room to alert staff if they fell. The person said, “I feel safe, knowing they are there if something happens.”

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s identified risks and told us they had enough time to support people appropriately. Staff described methods such as daily flash meetings and handover documents that alerted them to changing risks to enabled them support people safely.

We observed staff supporting people with risk safely. For example, one person who required assistance with their mobility was seated in a communal area and attempted to stand and mobilise on their own. Staff immediately offered assistance and support which prevented a possible fall.

Where risks to people had been identified, care plans detailed support used in mitigation to keep people safe. For example, one person's care plan described them as a very high falls risk and a decision had been made to use bed rails to keep the person safe whilst in bed or asleep. The care plan showed the person had been included this decision and a reduction in falls had been noted. Care plans we reviewed showed comprehensive risks assessment had been completed to support people to mitigate risks such as falls, weight loss and mobility. Care plans also included clear guidance for staff on how to support people safely and in line with their wishes which ensured safe person-centred care.

Everyone we spoke to told us they felt safe living at the home. People and their relatives said they had access to any equipment they needed such as walking frames and hoists. One relative said, [Name] fell quite often at home but hasn’t done since being here. They put a sensor in [name’s] room, so they know when they need help.”

Staff described the pride they took in maintaining a safe environment and cleanliness of the home. Staff said the maintenance team were responsive to requests for repairs or alterations. Staff were able to describe different checks that were undertaken to ensure the environment remained safe, such as mattress and pressure cushion audits. This meant people were kept safe as equipment was maintained and met their needs.

Where people used equipment, such as hoists and wheelchairs these were clean and well maintained. The home was safe in the event of fire. Corridors were clear of any blockages, allowing people to follow easy to read escape routes. Staff had access to fire-fighting equipment which was maintained and inspected on a regular basis. We observed staff supporting people safely and, in a person-centred way. For example, we saw one staff member supporting a person to mobilise, they encouraged the person to remain independent and ensured their walkway was clear to enable freedom of movement. The staff member was alert to the person tiring and asked the person if they needed a walking frame.

The environment was kept safe, by regular checks and maintenance. We saw there had been regular checks to ensure the home was safe in the event of a fire (for example, by checking the alarm systems.) Systems were in place to ensure the water quality was maintained to reduce the risk of water-bourne bacteria (like legionella). The gas heating system was regularly serviced to prevent harm to people. The registered manager completed a daily walk around of the home to identify issues, this also included speaking with people to gain feedback. Staff had been upskilled to complete these checks in absence of the registered manager to ensure people were consistently safe.

We did not look at Safe and effective staffing during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People told us they were supported safely with their medicines by staff who understood their needs. One person said, “[Staff] is very good, they know what all my tablets are and how I like to take them.”

Staff told us they were supported and trained to administer medicines. Staff were knowledgeable about people needs and were able to describe process to follow if errors occurred to ensure risks to people were reduced. One staff member said, “We are encouraged to report errors, that way it can be sorted quicker. No one gets blamed so people are not afraid to speak up.”

There were comprehensive and effective quality monitoring systems in place to ensure people remained safe. We saw examples of auditing of records where areas for improvement had been identified and action taken. For example, daily temperature checks for the fridge had been missed on a certain day. The deputy manager held a supervision with the staff member to address the issues and offer retraining.