Stratton House

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

People told us they felt safe. Systems and processes supported this. In this key question we assessed the quality statements safeguarding, involving people to manage risks, and safe and effective staffing.

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.

Staff received comprehensive training in safeguarding and had a good understanding of how to keep people safe. Staff told us: “I would talk with the manager [if I had safeguarding concerns]. I have raised something here and it was sorted out…I was listened to.”

People and their relatives told us people felt safe. Comments included “[Person] is amazingly safe here”.

Systems and processes were in place to support staff to understand their responsibilities around safeguarding. For example, staff had been provided with ‘Safeguarding Adult pocket books’ detailing types of abuse, the six key principles of safeguarding, and information on whistleblowing procedures, and we found staff had a good understanding of safeguarding. People’s risk assessments about care were person centred, proportionate and regularly reviewed with the person. Staff and the manager told us each person has a monthly review of their care plans and risk assessment through their 'resident of the day’ process.

People’s risk assessments about care were person centred, proportionate and regularly reviewed with the person.

Staff helped people understand about individual risks and knew how to support people in a way that promoted positive risk taking. People and their relatives were central to the risk assessment process. Staff told us: "We would do a risk assessment with the resident and the family… help make them aware of what we are doing to ensure their safety by talking with and explaining about the safer options available.” Staff gacve us additional examples of how people were supported with positive risk taking. Staff told us: “People go out. One person goes for a walk around the park every day on their own."

People were supported to manage individual risks in a way that promoted their independence and wellbeing. For example, we observed people with mobility issues moving around the home independently, with equipment to help manage risk and support independence. People were able to access the garden independently and systems were in place to alert staff if people needed help whilst out in the garden.

People’s risk assessments about care were person centred, proportionate and regularly reviewed with the person. Staff and the manager told us each person has a monthly review of their care plans and risk assessment through their 'resident of the day’ process.

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

Staff have received specific training to help meet the needs of individuals they support. Staff told us: “We have had mental health training, which provided extra information to help us understand how to help people with mental health issues.”

People spoke positively about the staff within the service. One person told us: “Staff are very pleasant”.

Staff received a comprehensive training programme tailored to people’s needs which also included site specific training such as fire drill training. Staff were invited to become training ‘champions’, where staff were offered further training in certain areas such as continence care, end of life care and safeguarding, to support staff by sharing knowledge, new practices, resources and offering advice. Staff were recruited safely and received regular supervision.

We observed people being supported by competent staff who knew people well.

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.