Scalford Court 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

During our assessment of this key question, we found concerns around staff training, supervision and competency assessments. This resulted in a breach of Regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can find more details of our concerns in the evidence category findings below. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in protecting people from abuse and the risk of harm. Safeguarding concerns had been raised with the relevant authority where required. Staff were responsive to people's needs, however staffing numbers were not always maintained. We found gaps in the training and supervision of staff.

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.

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.

Staff were responsive to people's needs and were observed to support people safely. We noted staff were confident and clearly understood people's individual needs.

Safeguarding incidents were reported to the relevant organisations, including the local authority and the Care Quality Commission. We found information was made available to people, family members and visitors about safeguarding.

Staff had not always completed training in safeguarding. However, staff were aware of their role and responsibilities to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff told us they would alert a senior carer or the director if they had any concerns as some staff lacked confidence that the registered manager would act on concerns raised. The local authority had shared Information and guidance with the provider and registered manager regarding their expectations in referring concerns and reportable incidents, this was to support the provider in making improvements to ensure information of concern was shared in a timely and consistent way.

People and relatives told us staff provided safe care and support and that they had no restrictions placed on them. A person told us, "I keep to myself, I feel quite safe."

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

We received mixed feedback about how staff responded to requests for assistance and the availability of staff. A person told us, "Sometimes you have to wait, not a long time." A second person said, "No problems day, nights or weekends." A third person told us, "I don't know what to say some days are better than others."

A dependency tool was not used to determined staffing numbers based on people's needs. The registered manager was able to provide information as to people's support needs, including the number of staff required. Staff told us sometimes there were staff shortages and agency staff were used, however they said there were usually enough staff. Staff said sometimes the skill mix of staff on duty was not well planned, which meant staff on duty could be inexperienced, with some teams working more effectively than others. Staff reported they had not had a meeting following their probationary period, whilst some staff raised concerns about a lack of supervision, meetings and support from the registered manager. Staff in some instances did not know what supervision was, and spoke of not having received any feedback as to how they were performing. Staff told us fact to face training was limited to moving and handling people safely, with other training being paper-based. Some staff said they would benefit from training in dementia care.

Staff were responsive to people's needs and calls for assistance. Staff were confident and knew people's individual care needs. Staff were seen talking to people and serving drinks to people in communal areas and those who remained in their room. Staff were seen engaging with people and to entertain people put on a show in the afternoon.

Systems and processes did not support the provider's policies. For example, the frequency of staff supervision, including meetings and appraisals was not consistent with the provider's policy of 6 supervisions per year. The provider's training and development policy stated mandatory training would be completed annually and was compulsory for all staff. However, records showed there were significant shortfalls in staff training, which included key topics related to the promotion of people's safety, care and wellbeing. For example, staff had not had training recorded for basic emergency aid, catheter care, fall safety awareness, safeguarding and sepsis awareness. Staff competency assessments were limited to the topic of medicine for those staff who administered medicine.

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.