Lifstan Way 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

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way which was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Staff had been supported to complete training and develop the skills they needed to support people safely. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were employed following the appropriate recruitment checks being completed.

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.

People told us they felt safe living at the service. One person said, “I feel safe here with residents and staff.” Another person said, “I feel safe here, always staff around to help you.”

Staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people and had received training on how to safeguard people. Staff told us if they had any concerns, they would raise these with the manager or the provider and if needed would go outside of the service. One member of staff said, “Any safeguarding would be reported to the manager who would call their social worker. If I had a ‘whistle blowing’ concern I could raise this anonymously or with one of the directors.”

We observed people appeared very happy in the company of staff and with each other. There was a relaxed atmosphere at the service with people engaging in activities of their choice.

The registered manager had policies and procedures in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people and there was visible guidance for staff to follow. In addition, the service had an independent 'whistle blowing' procedure where staff could report concerns anonymously if they wished. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS application had been made and legal authorisations were in place where required. Where authorisations needed to be reviewed the registered manager had applied for these. Staff understood the need to gain consent from people for care and to encourage people to make decisions for themselves. To ensure people’s voices were heard if family were not able to act on people’s behalf there were advocates appointed to work with people.

People were involved in planning and managing their risks to maintain their independence and promote positive outcomes for them. One person said, “A few things have been added to my care plan due to my mobility and risk of falling.”

The registered manager was able to demonstrate how they took a person-centred approach to managing peoples risks and supporting their independence. Staff knew people well and understood how to support them safely.

We observed risks were individually assessed and staff were available to support people maintain their independence.

Risk assessments and care plans were person centred and provided guidance to staff on how best to support people. Risk assessments helped to mitigate the risks to people by providing guidance to staff on how to provide safe support. People were supported to live as independent lives as possible. There were detailed personal evacuation plans in place should there be a need to evacuate the building.

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

People had good relationships with staff. One person said, “The staff are really proactive and patient. They will explain things over and over again.” Another person said, “All the staff are really good, but I get on especially well with my key worker.”

The registered manager told us they had a stable staff team and had been able to recruit new staff into post when needed. Where an agency was used to provide additional staffing hours, they used regular agency staff who knew people well and had integrated into the team. Staff told us they had a good staff team and felt supported in their role by the registered manager and provider. One member of staff said, “We have a good team and regular staff meetings and supervision. In supervision we discuss what we have done well, what we can improve on and goals to move forward.”

We observed staff were available and engaged with people. Where trips out had been organised, staff were able to support people in the community to follow their interests.

Before staff started working at the service they were invited for an interview. People living at the service if they wished were involved in interviewing new staff and their feedback obtained. When staff started working at the service, they had an induction and completed training to give them the skills they needed to provide effective care. The registered manager arranged on-going training for staff to help with their development. This included obtaining nationally recognised certificates. Staff received regular supervision to develop their skills and there was regular staff meetings to discuss the running of the service and support provided to people. Appropriate checks were in place before staff started work including providing full work histories, references and a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. DBS provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

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.

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