Fosse Court

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 avoidable harm. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to premises and equipment.

This service scored 0 (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.

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

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We were not assured that control measures were in place to mitigate risk of potential injury to people. We identified significant concerns within the environment of the service. We found exposed hot water pipes in 11 bedrooms and some radiators without covers which present a potential risk of scalding and burning. Two wardrobes and 2 large drawer units were not secured to walls to prevent them from falling and causing injuries. A corridor carpet was uneven and loose, presenting as a fall hazard. Multiple sofas had tears and rips in their covers, therefore could not be thoroughly cleaned or sanitised which would put people at risk of cross infection. Two hot taps were not fully working, and 1 hot tap was too cold which is not in line with safety executive guidance. Window restrictors were missing in 3 rooms, 1 window restrictor was broken, and a further window restrictor was easily manipulated to allow the window to open fully. We identified 1 en-suite toilet could be accessed from the communal corridors and the adjoining bedroom as the lock was broken. Call bells were not audible from all parts of the building, and call bells were not working in 1 bedroom and the ground floor toilet. In addition, 8 bedrooms, a toilet and shower room did not have call bell remotes present. Therefore, if a person needed attention staff may not respond. Signage around the service was not in place for all shower and toilets or clear. This is required to help orientate a person living with dementia and allow them to maintain their independence. Part of the garden accessible to people had hazards present such as a broken wall and loose bricks on the ground which would potentially cause slips, trips and falls. The pathway to the fire exit gate in the communal garden was uneven and would present as a trip hazard.

The provider’s audit and governance processes were ineffective and failed to identify the concerns found on assessment. Where concerns were identified the provider failed to record any actions taken. For example, the fire door check identified not all doors closed fully in line with fire regulations but failed to record any actions taken as a result of this finding. In addition, a health and safety audit completed failed to identify safety concerns within the environment such as broken window restrictors, unsecured radiator covers and exposed hot water pipes. The provider’s environmental risk assessment failed to identify the uneven garden pathway and carpet. The provider shared with us their improvement plan and while it contained some areas identified on assessment it failed to include all concerns we found, for example the missing call bell remotes in bedrooms.

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.