Pratt 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 were safeguarded and risks to them were identified and mitigated. Sufficient suitably recruited, trained, and well supported staff were provided to promote safe care and treatment.

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.

Staff told us they knew how to report concerns about people’s safety. They felt able to raise concerns with the registered manager and felt they would be listened to, and action taken.

We observed there were processes in place for the staff team to report any concerns. Daily meetings were held with the registered manager. These were opportunities to share any learning points to prevent harm to people. Following an incident, post incident review and lessons learnt forms were completed and a lesson learnt notice board informed staff of lessons learnt to mitigate the risks of reoccurrence.

People and their relatives told us, they were involved in discussion about how to minimise risk of harm. For instance, one person was at risk of falling from bed and their relative was invited to discuss how it could be prevented in the future.

People told us, when they required to go to hospital, they were supported to ensure they had information and medication with them. One person told us “I had to go to hospital, and I had my medication with me”. Another person told us “They [Staff] are so good. I went to the dentist as I had a problem, and the dentist gave a list of things to take. They sorted it out here, such lovely people. They care.” People’s relatives told us, they were always informed when their family member required hospital admission. One relative told us “When he had to go to hospital the home did provide information to the hospital about his care and concerns.” Another relative told us the home had “very good processes” for when family members had to attend hospital.

Staff told us, each person had a hospital passport. We observed these were easily accessible to staff in the event of an emergency.

Systems were in place to ensure people were assessed prior to coming to live at the service. A hospital passport was in place for individuals which outlined their personal care and medical needs which promoted safe transition from the service to hospital.

Staff who provided feedback demonstrated a good understanding of how to safeguard people from abuse. Staff told us they would not hesitate to raise concerns to the registered manager, and above if needed. Staff had received training on how to protect people from abuse.

Without exception every person we spoke with at Pratt House, told us they were safe. Comments from people included “Oh yes very safe”, “Oh yes safe and looked after and “I feel safe because [Manager’s Name] has come to comfort me”. People’s relatives told us their family member was safe at Pratt House. Comments included, “[Family member] is absolutely safe. She is happy and comfortable”, “I think she is safe and well looked after” and “I know [Family Member] mum is safe there and she says so herself, because the staff are very good.”

We observed staff supported people in safe way. We found staff promoted safety by checking on people throughout the day and night. We found people were not subject to unnecessary restrictions on their movement. Where restrictions were in place these were lawful. For instance, bed rails or lap belts on wheelchairs. We found people and staff had access to information about how to raise safeguarding concerns.

There were systems, processes, and practices to make sure people were protected from abuse and neglect. Records showed the registered manager and provider monitored events like falls and unexplained bruising to ensure any patterns of concern were identified and action taken to prevent reoccurence.

The provider and registered manager has processes in place to monitor and manage risk posed to people. Individual risk assessments were in place to protect people when receiving care and support. The registered manager held a daily meeting with staff which discussed risks posed to people. In addition to this a weekly clinical risk meeting was held. This provided an overview of risks posed to people such as pressure damage, risk of falls and malnourishment. Where action was required, this was detailed, for instance, a referral to external healthcare professionals.

People and their relatives told us they felt risks posed to them were managed and mitigated. One relative told us “I am informed of any risks” their family member required regular input from community healthcare professionals, and they felt the risk of a deterioration in their family member’s health was managed well. Another relative told us “They have taken action to prevent falls…[Family member] now has to move around using a frame…they [Staff] also put a support frame in place to prevent her from falling from the bed.”

We observed equipment was in place to support staff to manage risk of harm to people. This included bed rails and pressure relieving mattresses as examples. We observed staff had an interest in supporting people to be safe. One member of staff responded quickly to water being spilt on the floor to prevent people from falling.

Staff we spoke with were aware of the risks posed to people. We noted any new risks were discussed at daily meetings to ensure staff were aware of what actions to take to prevent harm to people. Staff told us they had access to risk assessments, and they were updated when any changes in people’s needs occurred.

We observed people were supported in an environment which was fit for purpose and well maintained. Equipment used to deliver care and treatment is suitable for the intended purpose, stored securely and used properly.

People and their relatives told us they were happy with the environment. Comments included, “Oh yes look at it, it's very nice.” One relative told us “The location of [Family member’s] room is in a busy area and normally door is left open. There is a continual traffic of people, and someone always sticks their head in to check they are okay. So [Family member] is not unseen or shut away.”

Staff told us equipment used in the home was well maintained. Staff were aware of fire safety issues and engaged in routine fire checks.

The service and equipment used was regularly serviced and suitably maintained. This included servicing of the gas, electrics, water, fire and moving and handling equipment. Alongside this, the service carried out in house checks of water outlets, window restrictors, first aid boxes, call bells and fire equipment with fire drills taking place to ensure staff knew how to respond in the event of a fire. A business continuity plan was in place and environmental risks were identified and mitigated to promote a safe environment.

People and their relatives gave us positive feedback about the staffing levels and the deployment of staff. People told us their calls for help were answered quickly. Comments included “Oh yes, you don’t wait long” and “Yes, they are very patient and kind, lovely yes, they support me.” Relatives told us they felt there was enough staff to support their family member. Comments included “I would say that there is enough staff. There is no evidence of staff shortages. They get on with their work and are not standing idle.” People and their relatives told us they felt the staff had the right skills to support them. Comments included “The staff have the skills and knowledge to support residents. Absolutely. I have no issues about the ways in which [Family member] is supported. [Family member] has a primary carer and they do so much for her.” People and their relatives told us “The staff and manager are certainly very enthusiastic and very efficient” and “The managers are friendly and efficient – the best there’s been for 4 years since [family member] has been there. The team is cohesive in terms of hand overs. They work together as a tight unit."

Staff told us they worked well as a team. We found staff were allocated duties on a daily basis to ensure a staff member was accountable for them and the required tasks were completed. Staff commented, “The home was “a special place to work”, “feel supported in my role” and there was “Good communication”.

We saw there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Call bells were answered swiftly, and staff worked well as a team. We observed there was good communication between staff , which promoted team work.

Staff were suitably recruited, inducted and supported in their roles. Sufficient staff were provided to meet people’s needs. The registered manager and deputy manager had oversight of the shifts with daily allocation records in place which identified which member of staff was supporting each person. In addition to daily care support, one member of staff was allocated a shift to support with additional tasks such as supporting people with drinks. The service had additional domestic, catering, administration, and activity staff, with volunteers in use at the home to compliment the staff team in promoting person centred care.

The service used effective infection, prevention, and control measures to keep people safe, and staff supported people to follow them. Staff had access to policies and procedures to ensure they kept up to date with any changes in guidance. We found concerns and areas of improvement were discussed at team meetings. Routine audits were carried out to assess the effectiveness of infection control and prevention systems.

Staff were positive about how the home is kept clean and free from risk of infection. They were aware of their responsibilities to mitigate the risks of cross infection.

People and their relatives told us they did not have any concerns about the risk of infection. People told us they were happy with the cleanliness of building. Comments included, “The room and the toilet are always clean when we go in” and “The cleaning within Pratt House is first class. It’s always spic and span.” People told us staff routinely used personal protective equipment (PPE), comments included, “They [staff]do wear gloves yes and aprons” and “I have seen them wearing aprons and things gloves yes.”

We observed the home was clean and tidy. We found there was good processes in place to manage laundry to prevent cross infection.

We observed staff supporting people with their medicines. This was carried out with patience and kindness. Staff felt confident and trained to support people with their medicines.

The provider and registered manager has processes in place to manage medicines. Staff received training and were deemed competent to support people with their prescribed medicines. Routine audits were carried out on medicine stock and records relating to administration of medicines. We found some of the required checks on temperature control were not routinely carried out. We found some medication administration records were handwritten these did not routinely follow the providers policy. We found no evidence that people had been harmed as a result. We have asked the registered manager to ensure improvements are made when staff hand write medicine records. The registered manager responded to our feedback about checks on temperature control.

People who were able to discuss their medicines, told us, they knew what to take and were happy with how the staff supported them. Relatives were also positive about the support their family member received. Comments included, “When they give her medicines, they are focussed on the job and don’t want to be disturbed. The make sure she takes her medicines” and “My main concern was her not taking medicines, but now it’s brilliant. The carer even puts on an apron signalling not to be disturbed as she is working with medicines”.