Prideaux Lodge

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

Systems were in place to help ensure people remained safe. People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse. Risks were well managed and care plans provided sufficient guidance to staff to keep people safe. There were sufficient and appropriately trained staff, who had been safely recruited to support people.

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.

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 who were able, and their relatives gave us examples of how they were involved in managing their own risks whilst maintaining their independence.

The systems, processes and practices in place helped to ensure people were safe from the risk of harm, abuse and discrimination. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. Any conditions related to DoLS authorisations were being met. The registered manager had oversight of DoLS applications, authorisations and conditions.

Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe. They received regular training and told us what actions they would take if they were concerned people were at risk of harm, abuse or discrimination. One staff member told us, “I won't stand for that, not of residents, not of staff, not of anybody, it's not acceptable anywhere.”

Care plans and risk assessments contained guidance for staff to support people safely and appropriately. These were regularly reviewed. Recognised tools were used to help determine risk. These included Waterlow to assess potential pressure damage risk and the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) to help identify people who may be at risk of malnutrition. There was a daily handover document. This was very detailed and included all ‘at a glance’ information staff may need about people’s mobility, dietary needs and position changes. This was reviewed and updated for each handover.

Risks to people were managed safely. Staff knew people well and understood their individual needs and the risks associated with their care. Staff told us how they supported people to manage these risks safely. They explained how they checked people’s skin integrity to ensure there was no pressure damage and where required supported regular position changes.

We observed staff involving people in their care and support and allowing them time to make their choices and remain safe. Staff supported people with their mobility, ensuring they had appropriate walking aids to hand and proving assistance as required. Staff promoted people’s independence by allowing them to take well thought out risks. For example, one person had requested a cup of tea. This was provided and given to the person, allowing them to carry it to the chair they wished to sit in. People were able to move freely around the home. The locked doors to a cupboard that contained chemicals had been decorated to blend in with the wall. This meant that people were not distracted by doors which they may try to open.

People who were able, and their relatives gave us examples of how they were involved in managing their own risks whilst maintaining their independence. Visitors told us their loved ones were safe at the home and were confident staff would contact them if there were any concerns.

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

Relatives told us the staff had the knowledge and skills to identify any subtle changes or risks associated with people's care and support needs. One relative gave us an example of how they had recognised a change in their loved one. They then discussed this with staff who had already identified similar issues and had made appropriate referrals for additional support.

Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager. One staff member told us, “She is very supportive, we can talk to her at any time.” Other staff gave us examples of how the registered manager had supported them. One staff member said, “We have enough staff each shift, we cover each other if someone is off sick. If we work extra hours that is by choice. It’s a good staff team.”

Relevant pre-employment checks were completed before staff started work at the home. This included references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Staff followed an induction program when they started work at the home. This included training and they shadowed a more senior member of staff until they were competent and confident to work on their own. Staff received training in areas that were relevant to the people they supported. This was regularly updated. Supervision took place regularly, this included discussion with staff and observational elements.

There were enough staff working each shift to ensure people’s needs and choices could be met. People were supported by a consistent staff team who knew them well. We saw people were attended to in a timely way to ensure their needs were met.

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.