Heeley Bank 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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 service had systems in place to learn from accidents and incidents. Initiatives to reduce incidents had been implemented successfully, for example the service had achieved a significant reduction in falls at the home through the deployment of a falls prevention worker.

The provider 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. The service completed assessments of people’s needs prior to admission to ensure they were able to provide the care people needed. The service worked in partnership with professionals. A professional told us, “The provider is very responsive when necessary and also will contact for information and advice from us.”

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. Staff understood their responsibilities to identify and report concerns, a staff member told us, “If I had any concerns, I am comfortable taking these to managers.” Relatives felt people were safe at the service and staff were attentive to their needs. A relative told us, “The carers are lovely. There is always someone keeping an eye out.”

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. People’s plans of care were up to date, and staff knew people’s needs well. People’s preferences were recorded, and care was delivered in line with these. We observed the support provided to people to be safe and compassionate.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Systems and processes were in place to continually monitor the care environment and to make improvements where needed. Fire safety checks were up to date and people had individualised evacuations plans in place. Equipment used at the service, such as mobility and lifting aids, were maintained and safe to use.

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. Staff were recruited safely with pre-employment checks taking place to ensure their suitability for the role, including police record checks. New staff took part in an induction which included support and ongoing monitoring of their skills. All staff undertook mandatory training in a range of areas including dementia awareness, end of life care and fire safety. Staff also undertook additional reflective training which was bespoke to the needs of the service.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and liaised with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff had access to adequate levels of personal protective equipment (PPE) which was available throughout the service. The service undertook regular monitoring of the cleanliness of the service. The service had a team of domestic staff who were trained in areas such as infection control and health and safety. People told us they felt the service was clean. A relative told us, “Whatever time of day we visit, the home always has the appearance of just having been cleaned.”

The service ensured people got their medicines routinely as prescribed, and stock levels we checked were correct, including controlled drugs. People that had percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies (PEGs) had daily and weekly checks carried out to minimise the risk of infection. However, the flushes of these were not always documented on the care system. Fridge and room temperatures, where medicines were stored, were not always documented and escalated as per the home’s policy. Residents’ medicines that were in use were stored in locked cupboards and trolleys. However, the medicines rooms were untidy and cluttered. Behavioural charts were mostly filled out where required. People that were prescribed ‘as and when needed’ (PRN) medicines did not have robust protocols in place to ensure staff had detailed guidance specific to each person on how to administer these medicines if needed.