Canterbury House Care Home

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 were protected from the risk of potential abuse working with staff who knew them well, had appropriate skills and experience and knew how and to who to report any concerns to. People were protected from the risk of infection and the environment was maintained safely. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. The registered manager had added additional staff following an audit of the care call bell times, during busy periods. The management team used a dependency tool to determine the levels of staffing they needed to meet people’s needs. The dependency tool was reviewed on a regular basis. Accidents and incidents were managed safely to reduce the risk of a re-occurrence. Investigations, outcomes and lessons learnt were implemented to support this. People received their prescribed medicines safely in line with national guidance. Not all risk assessments were detailed enough to inform staff of the action to take to reduce the potential risk of harm. We fed this back to the registered manager at the end of our site visit, and they took action to address this.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People felt that staff listened to them and acted when needed. One person said, “If I had any concerns or was unhappy about something, I know I could go to the management team.” A relative told us, "I raised an issue a couple of weeks ago relating to my family member. The management team listened to what I had to say, and this has improved.” Staff confirmed they knew how to report and escalate any accidents or incidents and told us lessons learned were always shared with them. Accidents and incidents were logged, and action was taken when any patterns or trends were identified. Incidents and notifications had been referred and reported to external agencies as required, in a timely manner.

Systems were in place to ensure people’s needs and wishes were captured before moving into the service. Initial assessments were completed with people, their relatives and a member of the management team. The assessment would be used to determine if the persons’ individual needs could be met by staff at Canterbury House. The information gathered during the initial assessment was then transferred into the person’s care plan. External health care professionals told us the registered manager worked alongside them and made relevant referral as required.

People were observed relaxed and comfortable in the presence of staff, smiling and maintaining eye contact to staff when speaking with them. Feedback from the 2024 survey given to people using the service was that 95% of people felt safe and secure living at Canterbury House. Relatives told us that they felt their loved one was safe with the staff at Canterbury House. Comments from relatives about the loved one’s safety included, “Yes safe, my parents love it there” and, “Yes safe, the staff are happy, and this makes [loved one] happy.” Staff told us and records confirmed they had appropriate safeguarding training. Staff were knowledgeable about potential signs of abuse and knew what to report and to whom. They were confident that the right actions would be taken by the management team. Staff had access to and followed the provider’s policy and procedure. Safeguarding records were up to date, had been reported to the local authority and to CQC appropriately. The registered manager had worked closely with the local authority safeguarding team in relation to investigations and resolutions. Closure notices were all logged. There was evidence through email chains of good teamworking with the local authority with lots of ‘thank you’ emails’ from them.

Some risk assessments did not consistently contain specific guidance of the action staff should take and when, if the risk occurred. We spoke with the registered manager about this who took immediate action to review people’s risk assessments. Other risk assessments contained detailed guidance to inform staff how to support the person whilst reducing any potential risk. Relatives told us they did not always feel involved in the development and review of their loved one’s risk assessments. Staff told us they knew people well and were aware of their potential risks. We did not observe any concerns throughout our sit visit.

People and their relatives spoke highly of the facilities on offer within the service and said they felt the building and grounds were well maintained. A maintenance person was in place and staff recorded any maintenance concerns they had identified within a record book; this was then used to guide the maintenance person to complete any additional tasks. Regular checks were made of people’s equipment to ensure they continued to be safe and well maintained. Systems were in place to ensure the safety of the premises and equipment. Regular servicing and checks were in place from external providers for items such as, the fire panel and people’s moving equipment. Health and safety checks were completed such as, firefighting equipment, water temperature checks and window restrictor checks. Risk assessments were in place for all cleaning substances that were used.

There were enough staff to support people safely. People were observed to be comfortable and relaxed in the presence of staff. Relative’s raised concerns that staff always appeared rushed and busy, and that the telephone took a while to be answered at weekends. However, staff spoke positively about the staffing levels and felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. The registered manager used a dependency tool to determine the staffing levels, and this was reviewed on a regular basis. Following an audit of the call bell response time additional staff were added to the rota during identified busy periods. Staff received the appropriate training and support to meet people’s needs. Staff had been recruited safely. Records were maintained to show that checks had been made on employment history, references and the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). Where there were gaps on the application form these had been explored at interview and documented. For the agency staff supplied there were detailed staff profiles in place to demonstrate safe recruitment and mandatory training.

People and their relatives felt the service was clean and tidy. We observed that people’s equipment was clean, and the public spaces were clutter free. Staff had been trained, understood their responsibilities and followed the provider’s infection control policy. Cleaning schedules were in place which the domestic team followed, and infection control audits were undertaken regularly. There were posters in appropriate places advising people, staff and visitors of the importance of hand washing.

People and their relatives felt they received their medicines safely and as prescribed. People were offered pain relief ‘as and when required’ medicines when needed. Medicines were managed safely in line with national guidance. Medicines were stored securely in clean, temperature-controlled conditions. We saw people received their medicines on time and as prescribed. Medicine administration records were completed accurately. Medicines were administered by staff who had been trained and assessed as competent to carry out this task. Training and competency records were comprehensive and up to date. Medicines were audited regularly. Medicine errors were documented, investigated and lessons learned shared during meetings. Staff were encouraged to reflect on their actions to use as a learning tool.