Linwood

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

People’s records evidenced information, such as risk assessments to inform staff on how to support the people safely. Systems were in place for staff to know how to report any safeguarding concerns and records confirmed the registered manager worked with the local authority safeguarding team to keep people safe.

This service scored 56 (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 and their relatives told us they felt safe. People told us, “Yes I’m safe, there are always people [staff] available if I need help”, “I feel a sense of community here, so yes, I am safe” and “I feel safe because I’m confident in their [staffs] abilities.” Relatives commented on people feeling safe. Their comments included, “I am 100% confident when I leave here that my relative [person] is in safe hands”, “We do feel they [people] are safe once we leave” and “It’s assuring knowing my relative [person] is left in good hands.”

Staff had a good knowledge of safeguarding procedures and abuse and demonstrated their commitment to raising concerns and keeping people safe. Staff also considered people’s rights when working to keep them safe. Their comments included, “I am trained, and I would report any concerns to my line manager, the manager or the police”, “I have been trained in safeguarding so I know to report any concerns to the team leader or my manager. I can also contact the local authorities. With safeguarding, I try to understand them [people], be patient and explain what we are doing. This is to protect their rights” and “All concerns are reported to the deputy or the manager. I also inform the local authority safeguarding team. With safeguarding we do consider the mental capacity act so as to protect resident’s [people’s] rights. I give them options so they can choose.”

Systems were in place to record, report and investigate safeguarding concerns. People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were considered when keeping people safe. Records confirmed the registered manager worked with the local authority safeguarding team when dealing with safeguarding concerns.

People and their relatives told us they understood their risks and were involved in managing the risks. People said, “Yes, we did a needs and risks assessment”, “We sorted that [risks] out when I first moved in” and “We do a review on it [risk] often.” Relatives commented, “We have a family group chat in which we can communicate any safety concerns we may have collectively, and they are addressed immediately” and “I feel involved, and they [staff] don’t do anything without my permission.”

Staff were aware of people’s risks and told us how they involved people in managing their risks. Staff comments included, “The risk assessments work. We act as a team and use them to keep residents [people] safe. I involve them by talking to both the resident [person] and their relatives so we all understand. We involve other healthcare professionals as well where appropriate”, “Our risk assessments are very useful. I speak to people, check their capacity and if needed talk to the family. I talk to residents [people] and ask how they want to be helped. I give choices so it is their decision” and “I read the care plans to know what’s going on, they are a good guide for me. I involve the resident [person], give them choices then I tell them what we are doing and why.”

We saw that risks were well managed. A system of risks assessments were contained in people’s care plans. These risks were formed from initial assessments from when people arrived at the home and records confirmed they were regularly reviewed and updated. Information from accidents and incidents fed into risk assessments and staff continually monitored and discussed people’s risks. For example, falls were monitored and analysed and where patterns were identified action was taken. This included deploying staff to areas of the home where falls occurred and using sensor mats to alert staff to vulnerable people’s movements.

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

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.