Boughton Green Road Limited Also known as Richardson Care

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

We assessed all 8 quality statements in this key question. Our rating for this key question has improved to good. We found safety was important, managers and staff took all concerns seriously. We saw improvements had been made to risk management plans, incident recording and actions taken. Staff understood how to keep people safe, and lessons were learnt when things had gone wrong. Managers investigated all reported incidents to reduce the risk of them happening again. People were supported by staff who knew them well and ensured they received their medicines on time. People could be assured they were cared for by staff who were recruited safely and had the skills and knowledge to support them.

This service scored 50 (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 able to speak with staff and managers if they had any concerns. Families said they were kept informed of any accidents or incidents. One family member said, “[Loved-one] does have a few accidents with their walker. They [staff] get in touch straight away.” Staff told us how they recorded incidents, and we saw a process was in place for monitoring accidents and incidents. The manager undertook investigations when necessary and any lessons learnt was shared with staff through staff meetings and supervision. Partner agencies, such as local authority commissioners, also confirmed they were kept informed of any incidents.

People had a hospital passport which detailed their support needs. This meant if they went to hospital, staff at the hospital knew how to support and communicate with them. Families told us if ever their loved-one needed to go to hospital, or any other health appointments staff went with them which assured them. The service liaised with the GP and District Nurses when needed. They also worked with local authority commissioners to ensure people were getting the right support. Commissioners told us they were assured staff knew people well.

People told us they felt safe. A relative said, "[Loved-one] is safe there. They are always monitored and looked out for.” People’s mental capacity was assessed, and best interest decisions made where people lacked capacity to make decisions for themselves, to keep them safe. Staff understood their responsibility to protect people from harm or abuse. Managers raised any safeguarding concerns with the local authority and ensured any incidents were fully investigated. There was a system in place to record and monitor any safeguarding concerns. Commissioners were assured people were cared for safely.

People were encouraged to be involved with care planning meetings; however, most people did not have the full capacity to understand any risks to their care. Families told us they felt the staff cared for people safely and measures were in place to keep people safe, for example assistive technology was being looked at for one person who was at risk of falling. There were plans in place to mitigate any identified risks, for example, a person assessed as at risk of choking had a plan in place which detailed what texture food needed to be, how drinks should be prepared and given. Staff told us they were involved in identifying risks to people and reviewed them monthly to ensure information was kept up to date. Commissioners also confirmed they had no concerns about the management of risk at the service. We saw staff following risk management plans which assured us people were being cared for safely. However, more consistency in recording of information was needed. We spoke with the manager about this who assured us they were already addressing this with staff.

People lived in a safe and clean environment free from clutter. Each person had their own room which they were able to personalise. Communal areas were well maintained and there was sufficient space to accommodate any equipment people required. Staff understood their responsibilities in the event of a fire. There were regular fire alarm and fire drill tests in place. Senior staff and managers undertook regular audits of equipment and equipment was regularly maintained. Gas, electricity, and water supply systems were tested, and we saw up to date certificates to confirm this.

People told us the staff were good. On person said, “The staff are lovely, they make me feel safe.” Relatives told us they found the staff friendly and skilled, but some did not always feel there were enough of them. On the days of the site visits, we saw staff respond to people’s needs promptly and where people required 1:1 support they received this. Staff told us they felt there was usually enough staff on duty. One said, “Almost every day there are enough staff. If we cannot get cover then we get staff from an agency.” We saw from staff rotas there were enough staff deployed each day to meet people’s needs. The manager told us if they were unable to cover the rota with their own staff, they would use staff from an agency who knew the people. Safe systems were in place in relation to recruitment. Staff told us they were supported through regular training, and we saw from training records staff undertook refresher training and their competencies were assessed.

Feedback from people and relatives did not highlight any concerns about cleanliness and hygiene at the service or how staff minimised the risk of infection. Staff had received appropriate training in infection prevention and control and were aware of safe hygiene practices. One staff member told us, “We have personal protective equipment (PPE) at stations around the home, you can grab PPE easily wherever you are.” We saw staff wore PPE appropriately when they needed to. The provider had policies and procedures in place regarding Infection Prevention Control and had systems in place to monitor. There were arrangements in place to make sure the environment was cleaned by staff at regular intervals.

People received safe support with their medicines. Relatives shared no concerns about people’s medicines. Staff used effective systems to manage medicines safely. They had a good understanding of safe medicines management processes and understood people’s individual needs. Staff competencies for administering medicines were regularly tested. Regular audits of medicines were undertaken.