Magna Care Centre

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

Safeguarding processes were followed, and staff were aware of reporting systems. People were supported to make choices that balanced risks of harm with positive choices about their lives. Staff knew how to safely support people around their individual risks. There were enough staff to deliver safe care that promoted choice, control, and individual wellbeing.

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 living at Magna Care Centre. Comments included, ‘’Very happy, it’s a good care home,’’, ‘’It’s such a good place. The quality of care is good,’’ and ‘’Oh absolutely, I feel safe.’’

Staff were aware of the safeguarding processes and the actions they had to take to keep people safe from harm. Comments included, ‘’I would go straight to the registered manager or others I would go higher and go to the regional manager if I was concerned it had not been dealt with. There are posters in the nursing station, for the whistleblowing protocol, I would go straight to that. I have never had to raise concerns. I am absolutely confident the registered manager would deal with any concerns I had,’’, ‘’I would tell the registered manager, I am confident they would follow this up,’’ and ‘’I am confident the registered manager will follow things up and keep people safe. I believe people are safe here.’’ Staff knew who to contact outside of the home to raise concerns.

People appeared comfortable in the presence of staff. They received care and support in line with their assessed needs. We observed kind and respectful interactions between people and staff.

Safeguarding processes were followed in line with the providers policy. This included referrals to the local authority. 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 Act 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 MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. People’s rights were being respected where necessary under DoLS. The registered manager and staff were aware of conditions and made sure they were carried out.

People were actively involved in decision making about their care, including where there were risks to their safety and wellbeing. Staff ensured people felt included. One person told us, ‘’I was involved in creating my care plan.’’

Risks were managed effectively, and staff had clear guidance to follow which was contained within detailed care plans. A staff member told us, ‘’We risk assess unwise decisions to make sure people live the way they want to, safely.’’ Another staff member said, ‘’We need to give them all the tools to ensure they have informed consent and understand the risks. We discuss this on clinical risk meetings, we talk about equipment we need.’’ Staff knew people well. Staff told us how they supported people who may experience emotional distress. Comments included, ‘’Talk to them, offer a drink, sit, and chat, maybe ring their family member. Try and distract them,’’, ‘‘It’s important to learn about people’s lives and past so we can help them today. It is important to know them and what they like,’’ and ‘’I talk nice and calmly, listen and also try and divert the situation, use distractions.’’

We observed staff working in a safe way, in particular when supporting people to move around the home. For example, we saw a staff member encouraging one person to walk and they followed behind them with a wheelchair in case the person became tired or unsteady on their feet and needed to sit down.

Risk assessments were person-centred and proportionate. People were involved in creating their own care plans and their views and personal preferences were respected. Weekly clinical risk meetings were used to discuss people’s changing needs and emerging risks. This meant people were protected from avoidable harm.

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

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. People told us they could access support when they needed it and felt staff were well trained. Comments included, ‘’They are very good, a bit like a family in a way,’’, ‘’They come quite quickly’’ and ‘’Very rarely do I need to press it (the call bell), but when I do press it, they come quickly.''

Staff were supported to do their job and had regular supervisions. Staff received training appropriate and relevant to their role. Comments included, ‘’I have supervisions, I am supported in my role”, “I am absolutely supported, the registered manager is always there or the deputies if we need them. They always help. We have the nurses too, there are enough staff here,’’ and ‘’Yes, I feel supported by the management team. We regularly talk about training, and improvements that are required by myself, my development, my role and we lead the colleagues”.

We observed staffing to be sufficient during our inspection. Staff appeared busy, but not rushed and attended people when they requested, either by using their call bell or by asking them for help.

Safe recruitment practices were in place. Staff were required to complete Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and reference checks prior to commencing employment in the service. DBS checks are important because they alert employers to individuals who are barred from working with people who receive a regulated activity. There was a process in place to ensure staff received the training necessary for their role. The registered manager told us they managed training by having a focus of the week, which was shared with all staff to ensure they remained up to date with their knowledge.

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.