Fauld House Nursing 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 were protected from the risk of harm and abuse. People's risks were managed well and the culture across the service promoted this good practice. Staff knew people's needs well which meant they could support them in the most effective way. The environment was clean and free from potential hazards. There were good infection control processes in place. There were enough well trained staff to effectively and safely meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited safely. During our assessment of this key question, we identified some medicines were not always stored in the most effective way. This was brought to the attention of the registered manager who rectified this with immediate effect.

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.

People told us they felt safe, and felt any concerns would be listened to and actioned. One person said, “It is nice being here and I feel safe. I would tell the staff if I was unhappy, but I never have had to.”

Staff had received training to help them care for people in a safe way. People who had specific health conditions such as epilepsy and diabetes were supported in an appropriate and effective way. Staff told us they could rely on the management team if any additional support and guidance were needed, and the management were proactive in offering support. A staff member said, “I am currently being supported by management to do a training course.”

Training was available for staff, and guidance to support staff in relation to people's individualised needs was available. There was a proactive culture of safety demonstrated across the service. Staff reported accidents and incidents as they occurred and there were opportunities for learning and improvements for staff to mitigate the risk of incidences reoccurring.

People told us they had access to services as needed and knew who to speak with to ensure their needs and wishes were understood.

The management team worked well together with people and staff to ensure that care was assessed, planned and delivered in an effective and consistent way.

The views and opinions of other relevant professionals and partners were actively sought to provide good outcomes for people.

Policies and processes were shared with people, staff and partners to ensure people’s care needs were effectively met, and there was a culture of shared learning and improvement.

People told us they felt safe living at Fauld House. We received comments which included, “I feel safe here, nothing worries me”, “We are safe here and have no concerns about anything” and, “It is nice living here and I have no worries.”

Staff knew how to recognise and respond to concerns of abuse and were confident the appropriate action would be taken. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how and where to access safeguarding policies and procedures should they need to. Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and understood about the importance of consent and choice.

During the on-site inspection, we observed staff speaking to people in a kind and comforting way, offering help and support to people where needed. People were not left waiting to receive support.

The systems and processes in place to protect people from abuse and neglect were effective. Staff reported safeguarding concerns and learning was taken and shared when incidences occurred. People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were fully supported and always understood by staff.

People were confident their risks were assessed and managed well. One person said, “I use a walking frame which is always with me, and staff follow me.” Another person told us, “I am hoisted from the bed into a wheel chair. I can stand with a frame. The hoist is always available if I need it and the staff always know how to use the hoist.”

Staff knew about people’s individual needs and understood their role in monitoring and managing these. Staff knew where to access additional guidance in order to support people, such as through care records, care plans and seeking additional advice from other professionals.

We observed staff supporting people in a safe way. For example, staff were observed supporting someone to transfer from a chair into a hoist and then into a wheelchair. The transfer was executed in line with best practice and staff spoke with people they were supporting to offer reassurance and safety.

Care plans were detailed and contained information about people’s specific needs in line with people’s wishes and choices and to promote positive risk taking. The management team had effective oversight of people’s risks to people due to effective incident reporting processes.

People told us they had no concerns about the environment and felt safe and well cared for.

Staff were able to work safely and competently in the environment and were using equipment and technology which had been assessed and maintained for safe use. The management had taken all reasonable steps to control risks in the environment.

There were mechanisms in place which promoted the safety of the environment. For example, there were signs which alerted people to fire exits and there were signs informing people areas had been cleaned to mitigate the risk of an accident occurring.

The environment was maintained to ensure safety for people living at Fauld house and for staff and others entering the building. Appropriate, detailed records were kept to upkeep and maintain the safety of the environment.

People felt reassured there were enough staff to meet their needs and told us they were able to receive support in a timely way. One person said, “There are enough staff day and night” and, “If I press the buzzer the staff come to me.” A relative said, “There always seems to be enough staff whenever I visit.”

Staff told us they felt there were enough staff to support people safely and effectively, but there was an acknowledgement about the occasional usage of agency care staff. One member of staff said, “It sometimes takes a little longer to train agency staff up but there are enough of us [staff].” Staff knew people’s needs well. The registered manager acknowledged the high use of agency care staff and was actively recruiting permanent members of care staff. There had been a drive to ensure all nursing staff were permanent employees and the registered manager told us the focus was now trying to ensure there was a consistent care staff team.

We did not observe people waiting to receive care and support and staff were attentive and knowledgeable about people’s needs and wants.

The management team ensured staff were recruited safely, and fully trained before supporting people. Records evidenced staff received regular supervision to enable staff to discuss and enhance their personal and professional development.

People were assured they were being cared for in the safest way as they could see staff wearing appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) as needed and there were housekeeping staff consistently cleaning the home. People we spoke with did not voice any concerns around infection prevention and control (IPC).

Staff told us they received training in IPC and had sufficient supplies of the right PPE. Staff were aware of how to keep people safe in line with best practice guidance.

Staff were observed wearing PPE at the correct times and the home was visibly clean and free from malodour.

The management team had effective IPC measures in place to keep people safe. Staff had access to policies and procedures as needed and received regular IPC training. Spot checks were undertaken to ensure staff were complying with best practice.

People received their medicines on time and as prescribed. Some people did not always know what medicines they were taking but understood they were being given them to manage their health needs.

Staff received medication training and were assessed to be competent prior to administering medication. Staff worked well together to mitigate the risks of medicine errors. One staff member told us how they identified a medicines error which was raised and dealt with appropriately by management team. However, some of the processes in place to effectively monitor medicines errors needed improving. The registered manager took on our feedback and made immediate improvements.

The registered manager had policies and procedures in place for safely managing medicines. However, some medicines were not always stored in the most safe and effective way and therefore the opportunity to identify potential risks associated with the storage of medicines were not always identified immediately. The registered manager made changes to the way medicines were stored so that errors could be identified immediately, and these new ways of working were communicated with staff. Medicines audits were completed to help ensure medicines were managed safely although these needed to be more detailed to enable themes and trends to be identified and the same issues prevented.