Laverstock Care Centre

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 reviewed 3 quality statements for this key question. There were systems to keep people safe from abuse and harm. Staff told us they would not hesitate to raise any concerns and they were confident the management would take timely action. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and guidance was available for staff. We observed staff following safe practice when using any equipment. There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs.

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.

People and relatives told us people were safe. People and relatives told us they would raise any concerns if needed.

Staff told us where they could find the safeguarding policy and had received safeguarding training. Staff were confident any concerns would be appropriately managed by the management team. Leaders told us safeguarding measures start at the recruitment process. Staff received robust safeguarding training during induction and have annual training refreshers. Safeguarding was a standing daily agenda item in staff meetings to keep their knowledge and awareness in mind. Leaders told us people and relatives are supported to understand safeguarding and how to raise any concerns. There are points of communication around the building, a residents newsletter and information within their contract.

Staff had applied to the local authority for DoLS authorisations. Leaders told us policies and processes were reviewed annually or when there had been a change. There is a 'policy of the month' discussion to refresh staff knowledge. The complaints process had recently been refreshed to include contact details for the managers and the local Adult Safeguarding Team.

Staff were aware of people's risks and knew where to find personalised guidance on how to support people safely. Leaders told us they encouraged positive risk taking, which was managed in a person-centred way for individuals. Preventative measures to mitigate risk were discussed with the person and their family or representatives.

Leaders told us they learnt lessons from incidents. Risk assessments and policies were reviewed and updated as required. Leaders told us there was robust training for staff, de-briefs and discussions following any incidents or changes to risk assessments.

We observed people being supported safely by staff who knew them well. Staff used all types of equipment safely.

People’s risks were managed safely as staff had clear guidance to follow. People and relatives told us they felt staff had the training needed to support them safely.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Staff had been recruited safely. All pre-employment checks had been carried out prior to staff starting work. Leaders told us there were effective training and development processes in place. Staff at all levels had the opportunity to learn new skills. The training lead monitored staff completion of training. At the time of our assessment there was a 95% training compliance. Leaders told us they have recently re-strategised their supervision and appraisal systems. Leaders told us this meant there was more regular supervision and greater oversight. Leaders told us staff are also supported with performance improvement plans if required, with clear objectives and supplementary training. There is a buddy system in place.

We observed staff were not having to rush when delivering care, staff had time to sit with people and interact with them at their pace. During peak times, such as meal times, staff worked well as teams to make sure people had meals in a timely way.

Overall staff told us there were enough staff on duty. If staff phoned in to report sickness at short notice, there were times when numbers were lower than planned. However, staff told us there was no impact to people at these times. Leaders told us they used a dependency tool which was reviewed monthly or when there had been a significant change in need, or admissions, to the home. Staff hours and rotas were calculated against high, medium and low needs. Leaders took extra factors into account, when calculating staffing numbers, such as call bell use, staff meetings and training. They had flexibility and autonomy to make changes to staff hours required.

People and relatives told us there were mostly enough staff available to meet their needs. We observed there were enough staff available to respond to call bells in a timely way and support people when they needed help.

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.