Edward House

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 service had a proactive and positive culture of safety. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Leaders had learnt from shortfalls at the last inspection and acted upon these. Learning around infection prevention and control, risks to people’s hydration and falls management had taken place to ensure that risks to people’s safety were assessed and managed. The registered manager had oversight of recorded incidents to determine what actions were required and whether changes to people support needed to be made.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. People’s needs were assessed thoroughly on admission, using information from health colleagues, people and their families to ensure that risks were current and known to staff when care started. Care plans detailed people's health conditions and provided the guidance staff needed to seek additional professional health support and when to make appropriate referrals to partners. People and their relatives confirmed that they were involved in the assessment process and that staff sought professional health support when needed. One professional said, “They have supported West Sussex in emergency placements when an individual was at risk. They have been quick to complete an assessment but continued to be thorough to ensure that they could meet the individuals’ needs in a safe manner.”

People were protected from the risk of abuse. The registered manager was aware of their safeguarding responsibilities and to notify the CQC of any abuse or suspected abuse. Staff had the training and knowledge to ensure they could recognise when people may be unsafe and to identify potential signs of abuse. Staff understood processes for reporting these concerns. One relative said about their loved one, “I think she's very safe and well looked after.” There was a clear understanding of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and this was only used when it is in the best interest of the person.

Risks to people had been identified and assessed. These risks were person centred and ensured that care plans had the information staff needed to manage them safely. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. For example, risks to people’s skin integrity, their nutrition and hydration needs and mobility had been assessed and reviewed. One person said, “The staff are very, very careful.”

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Risks associated with the safety of the environment and equipment were identified and managed appropriately. Regular checks to ensure fire safety had been undertaken and people had personal emergency evacuation plans. These informed staff of how to support people to evacuate the building in the event of an emergency. Equipment was also regularly checked and maintained to ensure that people were supported to use equipment that was safe.

The service 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. Leaders had oversight of staffing levels to ensure that people were supported safely. One person said, “The staff are always there. I’ve got a call bell in my room, but I can’t remember using it. They come quickly if they’re needed.” Staff received the induction and training they needed to meet the needs of people at the home. When asked if staff had the skills to support them, one person said, “Yes they do, and they get enough practice.”

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff were trained in infection control and there was a policy and procedure in place which staff could access. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to prevent the spread of infection. A dedicated housekeeping staff and cleaning schedule ensured that the environment was kept hygienically clean, while the home had a trained IPC Champion to oversee infection control practices. One person said, “They’ve got cleaners and everything else. They’re cleaning all the time.’

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Systems and processes were in place to ensure that people’s medicines were managed administered safely. We observed safe administration of medicines during the assessment. People and their relatives told us they were involved in discussions and decisions around their medicines management. One person said, “We get all our medication. The [carer], he’s got his head on straight. He’s really sharp.”