Acorn House - Laindon

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

We looked at 4 quality statements. All staff had been suitably recruited, inducted and trained to meet people's individual needs. There were enough staff employed to help ensure people were kept safe from harm. Staff received regular supervisions. Medicine processes were safe. People were supported in a clean, safe environment. The registered manager had good infection control measures in place and staff were carrying out regular audits.

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 had undertaken appropriate training in safeguarding people from abuse and had good awareness and understanding of the different types of and signs of abuse. Staff were aware of actions to take to safeguard people. A staff member told us, “I know the procedure of whistleblowing. Another staff member said, “I would report any concerns to my manager and if not listened to I would report externally to the police or CQC.”

Throughout the on-site assessment, we observed staff treating people respectfully and supporting people to remain safe. The registered manager had good knowledge of safeguarding and reporting procedures.

Acorn House had not had any safeguarding concerns; however, the registered manager knew the processes for reporting and recording incidents. The provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place including a procedure for whistleblowing and accidents and incidents were recorded via their online system.

Staff were positive about involving people to manage risks and had received training to support people safely. A health professional told us, “I have always found [staff] to be compassionate and proactive and to have the skills and knowledge needed.” A staff member told us, “Health issues are in reports, and discussed in handovers, and meetings.” Another staff member said, “We are informed of the health changes and risks related to people's care plans. We always do handovers where everyone will be informed of any changes.” The registered manager told us people were encouraged to be actively involved in their daily living and risk assessments.

We found risks were not fully assessed for one person in relation to accessing the community safely. The registered manager ensured this risk was immediately assessed when we brought it to their attention. The provider had systems in place to ensure feedback about the quality of care and support provided was received from people, their relatives, the staff team and external health and social care professionals. People were invited to complete surveys annually and the results of these were shared with the staff during team meetings. Care plans and risk assessments were detailed to reflect the individual needs of people who used the service. People had up to date personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPS) which contained relevant information about the people’s needs and support required to safely support them to evacuate from Acorn House in the event of a fire or an emergency. Appropriate professionals had been consulted to provide specialist advice and support.

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 and their relatives were positive about the staff support and consistency that is received at Acorn House. People told us they felt safe, that staff were nice, and they liked living at Acorn House. A family member told us, “Staff consistency has improved since the registered manager came into post and this has improved morale at Acorn House.”

Staff were positive about working at the service. A staff member told us, “The best thing about working here is the team.” A second staff member said, “I love working here.” We observed staff working in a person-centred way. Staff treated people kindly and were passionate about the people they were caring for. One staff member told us, “The best part about working here is the residents and the impact we have on them.” Staff training was reviewed to ensure they had the appropriate skills and knowledge to meet people's needs. All staff had completed training in safeguarding and abuse. Where gaps had been identified in training the registered manager provided assurances the training was planned and in the process of being completed. The registered manager told us they discussed incidents with staff for staff learning and we saw evidence of this within team minutes.

During the on-site assessment we observed staff responding to and supporting people safely. People were communicated with using the appropriate communication tools for their needs. We saw evidence of a range of communication methods during the on-site inspection, including use of pictures and other visual aids.

Appropriate checks were carried out prior to staff starting employment, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and references. DBS provides information relating to cautions and convictions that are held on the Police National Database. The information received during recruitment checks helps employers to make safer recruitment decisions.

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.

People received their medication from trained staff. Records showed staff were up to date with their medication training. The registered manager carried out medication competencies with regular spot checking. Staff had good understanding of actions to take if a person declined to take their medication. During our on-site assessment, we observed people receiving their medicines in a safe way.

The temperature of the medicine’s storage area was monitored twice daily, and staff were aware of steps to take if the temperature moved above 25 degrees. The service used an electronic medicine system and the Medicine Administration Records (MAR) records we reviewed were signed and clearly showed what medication was given and when. The provider had good practices in place during administering medication such as carrying medication in medication pots within a sealed tub from the cabinet to the person to avoid lost tablets and spillages. We observed safe administration of medicines at lunch time, including count down counting and verifying tablets with MAR charts. The provider had appropriate protocols in place for ‘as required’ medication.