Kathryn Court

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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 worked with people to keep them safe and protect them from harm. Relatives told us they felt their loved ones were safe living at the service. One relative said, “I do think my [relative] feels safe, if I did not, I would talk to [relative’s] assigned carer or manager.” Staff had received training in how to safeguard people and told us they would raise concerns with a senior, the manager or externally. One member of staff said, “I would talk to people and not make assumptions. I would contact the LA or the CQC if I had concerns. I would raise them immediately if I felt someone was at risk of abuse.” The provider had policies and systems in place to raise and investigate safeguarding concerns. The manager had been working closely with the local authority to investigate safeguarding concerns to keep people safe.

The service worked with people to identify, understand and manage risks. Relatives told us they felt staff were aware of their loved one’s care needs. Staff supported people to manage their risks of falls, pressure sore injuries and nutrition and hydration needs. One relative told us they felt staff needed to encourage more fluids to help people keep hydrated. We observed staff offering drinks and encouraging people to staff hydrated throughout the assessment. 2 visiting health professionals told us they felt staff managed risks well and that there had been a decrease in falls and skin injuries. Staff had guidance to follow in risk assessments and care plans and these were updated when needed. We did find that some historical information in risk assessments needed to be removed and highlighted this to the manager.

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 were supported by staff who knew them well and their care needs. There was a consisted care team at the service, however over recent months there had been a number of changes in management. The current manager had been in post for the past few months and there was a feeling of stability returning to the service. Relatives were complimentary of the care team and care being provided by staff. The manager told us they had reviewed staffing to ensure there was enough staff available to support people during busy periods. However, we did receive some feedback that staffing at times seemed short, especially at weekends. Staff were employed after the appropriate recruitment checks had been made. Staff received an induction before they commenced work and were supported with on-going training. Staff told us they had not been receiving regular supervision in the form of 1:1 meetings with a senior member of staff, however the manager told us they would be addressing this.

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.