Braywood Gardens

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 as 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 provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. The provider did have processes in place for the management team to review incidents and accidents. Records demonstrated they were reviewing incidents and producing lessons learnt. Staff told us they had regular training, both face to face and through e-learning to further their knowledge and skills. There was an open culture of learning from mistakes, concerns, incidents, accidents and other relevant events. These were shared with all staff along with lessons learnt to minimise future incidents.

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 registered manager 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 registered manager understood how to respond to allegations of abuse. They had a process in place and investigated concerns when needed to keep people safe. Staff told us they completed safeguarding training and knew where to find the safeguarding policy. Staff understood what they needed to report and how they should report any concerns of abuse. Staff understood how to respond to allegations of abuse. Staff told us that they had no concerns, but if they did, they were now confident the new management team would act appropriately. Records demonstrated the registered manager shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People had care plans in place. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People had personal emergency evacuation plans in place. This meant staff and emergency services had accurate information in the event of an emergency. A range of safety equipment was available at the service. This included sensor mats for people who were at risk of falls and general adaptive equipment to assist with mobility needs, such as wheelchairs, commodes and hoists. The availability of this equipment meant that people had access to risk reducing measures when required.

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 observed staffing levels had improved since the last assessment. 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. One person said, “They used to be very stretched but it’s much better now.” During the assessment, we observed people being supported in a timely manner. However, 1 person told us, “It can be a long, long wait at times if they’re busy.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. There were policies in place to guide good infection control practices. People told us they were happy with the cleanliness of the home and bedroom cleaning. One person told us, “The cleaners do such a good job here. My clothes come back clean too.”

At our last assessment, we found issues with medicines not given as prescribed. We continued to find similar concerns at this assessment. The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safely administered. We were not assured that staff understood the legal frameworks and national guidance around medicines. Staff told us that they had received training on how to manage medicines safely. However, we saw that medicines were not always managed safely. For example, we found that where there was time specific medicine, this was not always given at the specified times. Although there were times listed as to when the medicine should have been administered, there was no details of when this had been given. There was not always oversight in place and those processes that were in place were not always followed, such as contacting the GP when a person repeatedly declined medicines. We found that there was no evidence that gaps had been given between certain medicines and consuming food. Without this gap, there could be an impact on the effectiveness of the medicine. We also found that where a person was offered a variable dose, it was not recorded what amount had been administered. For example, a person was prescribed a medicine where the prescriber had stated to take one or two. However, staff did not have guidance to follow on when one or two should be given. It was also not recorded when one or two were given. The concerns were raised with the registered manager whilst on site who has provided assurances that measures were being taken to address the concerns raised during the assessment. Medicines were stored in a safely locked room and at a good temperature in line with good practice.