Old School House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

At the last inspection, the provider was in breach of regulation 18 of the Registration Regulations 2009 (Notifications of other incidents). This was because the provider failed to notify us of all events it was legally required to. During this assessment we found the provider was still in breach of this regulation. During our assessment of this key question, we found concerns around governance processes. The service needed to develop practice in response to learning from incidents. There was a supportive culture at the service and staff said they knew how to raise concerns and would be confident doing so.

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.

Managers developed the home in collaboration with external partners, such as the local authority. Recommendations made by the local authority had been put in place promptly following a recent assessment visit.

Staff felt they provided a good standard of care to people and said they were clear about what was expected of them to achieve this.

The registered manager was experienced in care of older people. They and the deputy manager were visible at the home and known by staff and people who lived there. We saw people who lived at the home interacted with managers in a relaxed way. Staff said they were listened to and supported by managers at the home.

Managers could access appropriate support and development in their role. For example, the deputy manager told us they were completing their level 5 award in management for social care.

Staff told us they were made aware of the whistleblowing policy and were encouraged to raise any concerns. One member of staff said “Our manager makes sure that all staff are aware of the whistleblowing policy and has many posters around the care home with how we can use the policy to report safeguarding concerns. We are also made aware of any outside places we can contact with a concern, such as a local council.”

There was a whistleblowing policy in place. We saw a poster on display which advised staff who they could contact if they had concerns.

Staff said they were treated fairly at work. They told us their ideas and concerns were listened to by managers. One staff member commented “I am encouraged to speak out and am always listened to” another said “The culture is good, they always respect our opinion in the home.”

Staff from a range of cultural backgrounds were employed at the service. The registered manager said none of the current staff team required any reasonable adjustments due to disability or other protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. They provided examples of how they treat staff fairly, such as annual leave and celebration of different religious and cultural festivals.

Processes for monitoring the quality of people’s care were not robust enough to identify all areas which needed improvement. The provider had not identified through their governance systems that 1 safeguarding referral had not been made. The provider had not ensured we had consistently been notified of all events they were required to tell us about. We had not been informed of 2 safeguarding issues. There were potential safety risks at the premises from cables, overloaded electrical extension sockets and a portable heater. These were responded to promptly when mentioned to the provider. However, these and the other areas for improvement had not been identified by the provider as part of their monitoring processes. Improvement was needed to these. Records were held securely and were available when required. Improvement was needed to how staff described injuries to people in care notes. For example, when we enquired, we were told a skin tear was a small cut and a cut was only a scratch. The registered manager told us they had already taken action to address this since it was raised with them. There was clear accountability at the home, with staff understanding their roles and responsibilities. The home had a business continuity and emergency plan in place, in the event of occurrences such as power failures, adverse weather and pandemics.

Managers told us they had introduced an electronic care planning system. This enabled real time monitoring of people’s care and when and how their needs had been met. This could also be done remotely, so managers could also make checks, if they needed to, when not on site.

Information from a healthcare and social care professional showed the home worked well with them to meet people’s needs.

The registered manager told us in their PIR that they worked in partnership with other agencies to meet people’s needs. This included healthcare professionals such as the GP surgery and dietitian.

Records at the home showed there were good working relationships with other agencies and staff contacted them wherever required.

People benefited from a service which worked in collaboration with health and social care professionals to meet their needs.

Only 1 example was provided of learning from incidents, which related to a medicines error. We could see appropriate action was taken. The registered manager said no further incidents had happened to learn from. This would be an area to develop within the service, to examine practice more closely for how it could be improved and taking into account learning from data such as local and national safety incidents.

Staff said they were able to share ideas in their supervision meetings and staff meetings. One member of staff told us there was learning when things went wrong. For example “All accidents and incidents are reported and followed up. My manager follows up on all incidents and to the best off the ability, tries to prevent any accidents and incidents taking place.”