Gorton Mill 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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first inspection for this service. This key question has been rated 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.

The service had a culture of safety and learning, based on openness and transparency. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt resulting in changes that improved care for others. All staff knew how to report incidents and accidents through the electronic system. These were reviewed by the coordinator. Incidents, and any changes in people’s support, were communicated to the staff team through handovers and a private staff WhatsApp group, to reduce the risk of a reoccurrence. We discussed with the registered manager the need to ensure staff recorded all instances of verbal abuse directed towards them.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Staff said care plans were available before people moved to the scheme, so they knew people’s needs when they started supporting them. Staff were able to suggest changes to these initial care plans as they got to know the person after they had moved in.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Relatives felt people were safe living at Gorton Mill House. Staff understood what to do if they suspected someone was at risk of abuse. The local authority completed formal assessments of people’s capacity to consent to their care and support. The provider informed the local authority if people’s capacity changed.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Potential risks people faced were identified and guidance was provided for staff to manage these risks. Risk assessments were regularly reviewed. Additional information was added to 1 person’s risk assessment around how they interacted with care staff during the inspection following our feedback. People and their relatives told us they were involved in discussing people’s support needs and reviews were held with the local authority and the service. Referrals were made to specialist teams, for example the falls team, so risks could be reviewed and managed.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Staff knew how to report any maintenance issues to the housing team on site. They said repairs were completed in a timely way.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Relatives said there were different staff supporting people. Rotas showed there was a regular staff team and, where possible, the same staff were allocated to support the same people. Feedback from a recent provider survey was staffing consistency had recently improved. Staff were safely recruited and received the training they needed for their role. The management team completed spot checks and observations of staff practice. Regular supervision and staff meetings were used to discuss staff practices.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Where identified in people’s support plans, staff completed cleaning tasks as part of their support calls. Personal protective equipment was readily available for staff to use.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff used the electronic system to record medicines they administered. They were unable to log out of the call if they had not recorded people’s medicines. If medicines were not administered the system raised an alert, which were monitored and followed up by the providers quality officers.