OSJCT The Meadows

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

Evidence showed people were safe. Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to report any safeguarding concerns. Risk assessments and management plans were in place and reviewed regularly. Risks related to bruising were assessed and managed safely. Equipment was used appropriately to support people and was checked to ensure it was safe to use. There were systems and processes for staff to follow and incidents and accidents were analysed. Improvements were made in response to learning from incidents. There were enough staff to support people’s needs and the service was fully recruited.

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.

The provider had a detailed safeguarding policy and procedure for staff to follow. This noted current information on what to do if anyone suspected a person was at risk of harm.

Staff were trained in safeguarding and were able to name different types of abuse and identify the common signs of abuse. Staff demonstrated that they knew who to report any potential safeguarding to and where to escalate this if necessary. Staff said, “If I had any safeguarding concerns I would seek advice from my line manager, if I wasn’t satisfied my concern was taken seriously I would speak to the local council and ask for the local safeguarding officer.” Staff showed a good understanding of risk management related to bruising. One staff member said “If I find a bruise on a resident, I will use the electronic system the home used to record information to take a photo using the body map and add it to the record for that resident. I will also inform the nurse and observe the bruise.”

People told us they felt safe living at The Meadows. They said, “The biggest thing affecting my safety is the staff. I consider that they do their jobs well, they know what they are doing, and they carry out their jobs safely. The staff look after everyone here very well”, “I feel safe, I feel relaxed, and I can do what I want to do” and “I do feel safe, I don’t feel that anything is wrong and I don’t have anything that worries me here.” Relatives felt the home was safe with feedback including, “I think the Meadows is very safe” and “We both feel it is a very safe environment for [person using the service].” People told us they knew who to report to if they felt unsafe. Comments included, “I’d probably speak to someone, one of the staff. I have no concerns, they are very good, very caring”, “I don’t normally say anything, but I’d be happy to” and “Yes, I would go to the staff, any of them. All the people who are in here, they are nice.” We observed meaningful interactions between people and staff. We saw people were at ease and the conversations flowed naturally which showed they were comfortable in the presence of staff. There was respectful light banter and staff knew people well.

Staff had all received moving and handling training and showed understanding about risk management and care plans. Staff said “I have had moving and handling training, and it is up to date. My manager is the moving and handling champion in our home. We now use the electronic system to record information which we as carers can access residents care plans, this can tell us which equipment each resident requires.” Staff demonstrated good knowledge in regards to the risk of bruising and how information should be recorded and monitored.

People's risk assessments and management plans were created using people's input. Equipment such as hoists, sliding sheets and wheelchairs were available for staff to use. During the assessment we observed staff were using moving and handling equipment correctly and in line with people’s care plans. There were enough staff to support people with the correct equipment. Records showed support was sought from the GP as well as the care home support service [these are community professionals who visit care homes to offer support and advice] which allowed the regular review of moving and handling practices.

People's risks to bruising as well as moving and handling were managed effectively. People had risk management plans and equipment to support them safely. Records showed incidents of bruising were monitored and investigated. We asked people if staff knew how to use moving and handling equipment safely and they said, “I think they do but I only have my wheelchair. They help me when I need them” and “Yes, I’ve seen them [staff] helping others with transfers, but I don’t have any myself.”

There was good oversight in the recording and monitoring of the risks people faced in their lives. This included monitoring falls and pressure ulcer risks. Staff considered patterns and trends in order to minimize the risks to people and inform staff how to support people safely. Staff met with healthcare professionals on a regular basis to share best practice, review people’s presenting risks and take action to ensure people were cared for appropriately.

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

People told us there were enough staff to meet their needs and they did not have to wait for support. Comments included, “I think that generally the staff numbers are as intended, you see that there are enough staff around most of the time. I don’t feel that there is any difference in staff numbers, weekends here are no different to be honest and I don’t notice any particular issues at night”, “They’ve got time, they don’t rush” and “I am not too sure, but it seems to be the same numbers on duty most of the time.” Overall, relatives were happy with staffing levels, and one told us, “I like the way in which the home does not depend on agencies to cover any absences.” Another relative said “I feel the majority of staff are equipped and trained in the home.” Activities staff were praised by relatives with one commenting, “I would like to say that the activity staff always have given 100%.”

Records of staff rotas showed planned staffing levels were always met. The manager told us they were fully recruited and had not used any agency staff in a long time. The service had an established pool of bank staff for when they needed to cover short notice absences.

Staff told us that there was enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff confirmed they found each other to be supportive and commented that they worked well together. Comments included, “I think there is enough staff on primrose unit, which is the unit I primarily work on. I believe there is enough staff on poppy when they have 5 carers and a kitchen assistant” and “We are not short staffed very often anymore which I find makes a happy home and ensures the residents get the quality of care they deserve.”

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Where people required support, we saw staff were quickly available and anticipated people's needs. We saw calls bells were responded to quickly. Staff looked relaxed and not rushed.

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.