Wolfeton Manor

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. A GP visiting the home was complimentary of the care people received and they didn’t have any concerns. Staff understood safeguarding processes and procedures. Accidents and incidents were logged and trends identified, and risks had been identified and mitigated. The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.  There were sufficient number of experienced staff who understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Managers followed safe recruitment practices and made sure staff training was up to date. Staff told us their performance was regularly reviewed, and they felt supported to fulfil their roles. However, we found inconsistencies in fluid and repositioning records, with variable knowledge from staff of how to support the individuals concerned. Staff told us there were 2 ways of recording, paper and electronic which may be the cause of the errors in recording.

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.

People told us they enjoyed living at Wolfeton Manor and felt safe with the staff. Comments included “There is always someone around” and “I don’t have to worry at all”. People and relatives told us there were enough staff on each shift to care for people safely, and the staff team knew them well and knew their likes and dislikes.

The provider had policies in place in relation to safeguarding and whistleblowing. Staff we spoke with were aware of how to refer any concerns they may have.

There was a clear process in place for managing people's care needs and risks. However, monitoring records pertaining to nutrition and hydration for two people were inaccurate and were not being consistently completed. This meant the provider could not be assured people were receiving support in line with their assessed needs. The manager was responsive to our feedback and told us they would quickly act to make the necessary changes. Risks to people were assessed and regularly reviewed. Risk assessments were personalised, detailed and gave staff clear guidance on ensuring people were supported safely. People had individual emergency evacuation plans in place. These were easily accessible for staff and detailed the support people needed in the event of a fire or other emergency incident. The provider had a process in place to assess the risk of fire and a wide variety of premises checks were completed to ensure people's safety.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of people. Staffing levels were informed by people's individual needs. The provider ensured staff received effective support, supervision and development.