Paisley 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

This key question has been rated good. We reviewed 3 quality statements for this key question. People told us they felt safe, and staff understood their responsibilities to report safeguarding concerns. We found risks to people were managed safely however, some relatives told us they had not been involved in the care planning process. Recruitment procedures for staff were robust and staff levels were sufficient.

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 told us they felt safe with the staff that cared for them. Comments included, “Yes, [name] is safe. They are brilliant. The care is brilliant and the medical staff. [Name] has dementia and since being here [name] has made massive improvements. They are ahead of the game. There are plenty of staff and they give [name] their medication on time and safely. It is mainly the same staff, sometimes the agency staff but they always know who you are and can tell me about [name of relative].”

Leaders told us there was a safeguarding policy and procedures were followed, this was displayed in the office and safeguarding training had been undertaken by all staff. Staff told us they were confident they had good understanding of safeguarding, how to recognise and report abuse. Staff told us the provider was quick to respond.

We observed kind and respectful and interactions between staff and people. We did not observe any safeguarding concerns in relation to staff’ approach to the safe delivery of care.

Safeguarding logs were in place. We saw evidence that all safeguarding’s were investigated, and appropriate action taken. Any lessons learnt were explored and shared with staff.

People said staff knew their relatives well however, we received mixed feedback regarding relatives being involved in care planning and the reviewing of care plans. We also received mixed views regarding relatives being asked to feedback on the service provided at Paisley lodge with some people saying they felt involved in the care planning and feedback process and others stating they had not been given the opportunity to be involved.

Staff told us they were aware of the risks people faced and care plans contained clear information about people’s needs and how to meet them safely. Leaders told us care plans were updated when needs change and information was shared with staff members immediately via handovers, daily huddles, and the PCS system.

Our observations showed staff were attentive and responsive to people's needs. Risks to people's care were well managed and staff followed safe practices.

Risks to people’s health, safety and welfare were managed safely which ensured people were not exposed to the risk of harm or poor care. Risk assessments were in place, reflected risks to people and where updated as risks changed. Where people experienced periods of distress and anxiety an appropriate risk assessment was in place to advise staff how to support people safely and consistently. Care plans were reflective of people’s needs and evidenced consistency in how people needed to be supported.

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 received mixed feedback for relatives with some stating there was not always enough staff, particularly on weekends and others stating they felt staffing levels were good. One person told us “Monday to Friday they have enough staff, but I have concerns on a weekend, they have agency and not enough staff. I raised this and they have recently acquired more staff.” Another person said, “There is always enough staff and yes they are well trained.”

Staff said there were enough staff on duty to provide safe care and support. They described good teamwork and communication. Staff said the provider responded promptly to increase staffing levels where the numbers and needs of people changed. Leaders told us staffing levels were maintained at a high level on each shift, when staffing levels dropped below due to sickness, agency staff were used and usually arrived within the hour, these were regular agency staff who knew the service well.

We observed there were enough staff to support people. People who preferred to stay in their rooms had access to call bells.

The provider followed robust staffing processes to ensure staff were recruited and inducted into their role safely. The provider used a recognised dependency tool to assess how many staff were required to support people safely. This was reviewed regularly if new people moved into the home, or people’s needs changed.

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.