Sherwood Court

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

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.

Staff documented accidents and incidents appropriately on comprehensive forms and knew when to escalate concerns further. There was a robust governance system to monitor and analyse incidents and learn from mistakes. Managers made changes to practice where required to improve care and communicated changes and rationale to staff.

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.

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 completed safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns. There was a relevant safeguarding policy and information available to staff. People and their relatives said they felt safe. A relative told us, “I have never had an issue with the home. I am completely confident that my mum is safe and well cared for. I watch when I am there, and everyone is well looked after.”

The registered manager made referrals to the local authority to raise safeguarding concerns and made sure any recommendations made were instigated and monitored.

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.

The registered manager completed risk assessments and support plans, which were uploaded to the electronic system. These were reviewed regularly and staff accessed them via handheld devices. People and their relatives told us they were involved in their care planning and reviews.

Staff accessed training about how to care for different aspects of health and wellbeing, to help them manage people’s risks and needs well. Staff had good knowledge about how to help support people experiencing distress.

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

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.

There were enough suitably qualified staff to care for people. The manager used recognised tools to help assess people’s needs and make sure there were enough staff on duty to manage everyone’s care needs. The service was not currently using agency staff. People and relatives told us there was a core group of staff that had worked at the home for some time and knew people well.

Training compliance rates were high, and staff could access further training to enhance their role. Relatives said staff appeared well trained; 1 person said, “This keeps [my relative] safe. They know her and her needs.”

The registered manager recruited staff safely and checked right to work information, references and made disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks. We identified some gaps in the interview notes regarding people’s employment history which we fed back to the provider and were assured this would be looked at.

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.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Staff signed to say they administered people’s medicines according to their prescriptions. There was sufficient guidance contained in people’s records for staff about different types of medicines. Medicines were stored securely and according to guidance. Staff recorded dates of opening to make sure items were discarded when they expired. We identified that staff did not always record information about time sensitive medicines which was resolved immediately after we fed this back.

A relative said, “I don't have to worry about my [relative’s] medications. The home does the prescriptions, and he gets his tablets on time.”