Rendlesham 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 assessed a total of 4 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question remains good. We found safety was a top priority. Staff and the management team took all concerns seriously. When things went wrong, staff acted to ensure people remained safe. Managers investigated all reported incidents to reduce the likelihood of them happening again. Staff supported people to live healthy lives and provided them with support and information on their care and treatment.

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.

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 told us they felt safe living in the service. A person living in the service said, “The manager often comes up and looks around. I don’t have any concerns.” A relative said, “I know mum is safe, there are sensors in her room. I keep on top of any issues and talk them through,”

Staff had all received training in how to follow the safeguarding process. They were able to describe abuse and how they would report suspected abuse. They were confident any concerns would be taken seriously and acted on.

Throughout the assessment visits we observed staff using safe practices to support people. This included safe manual handling practices and appropriate monitoring of people who used the service.

Systems were in place to safeguard people from abuse. The registered manager regularly reviewed safeguarding records, falls logs records to ensure any safeguarding issues were recognised and addressed. Safeguarding concerns were appropriately recorded, reported and investigated. Any lessons learnt were shared with staff to prevent any recurrence. The registered manager gave examples of changes they had made to staff practice to ensure people were safe. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were appropriately requested, recorded and monitored

People and relatives told us they were involved in managing risks. Relatives were complimentary about the system used to record people’s care and the access they had to this. Some relatives told us they went through this on a regular basis and it gave them reassurance about how people’s care was delivered on a day to day basis. Relatives described risks such as hoisting people being managed, “With great care.”

Staff told us there were good systems in place to understand and manage risk to people. A member of staff said, “We have lesson learnt analysis to help learn where we went wrong and what is right way moving forward.” Staff also described how lessons learnt were shared in hand over meetings. They gave an example of lessons learnt from a choking incident. The registered manager told us they and other mangers had spent time working on the floor to demonstrate and embed good practice.

We observed staff using equipment to support people to move safely, staff reassured people throughout the process and told them what was happening.

Care plans contained essential information for staff to be able to provide safe care and support. Risks to people’s health and safety in areas such as personal care, moving and handling and medicines had been assessed and any actions needed by staff to reduce the risk had been recorded. Reviews of care took place with people and their relatives (where appropriate) to ensure the current care provision continued to meet their needs.

People and their relatives provided positive feedback about the environment at the service. A person said, “I like living here. It’s very homely.” A relative described how a person’s room had been changed to better meet their needs.

Staff were aware of the process to report any defects. Some staff described delays in minor defects being addressed. The registered manager told us that the maintenance person was on annual leave and described how they were improving their oversight in this area.

We observed equipment such as hoists being used to support the safe delivery of care. On our first visit we identified some infection control concerns which we brought to the attention of the registered manager. These had been addressed on our second visit. Some areas of the service were showing age related wear and tear. There was a maintenance plan in place to address these.

Maintenance logs demonstrated that regular safety checks of the building were carried out. The registered manager described how they were introducing a new audit to further strengthen their oversight of the environment.

Feedback from people regarding staffing levels was mixed. One person said, “Every time I visit mum in her room some member of staff pops their head in 2 or 3 times whilst I am there.” However, another person said, “They are doing the best they can but they are constantly short of staff.” Another relative told us that the service could always do with more staff but that they felt there were enough staff to keep people safe and that things had improved since the new manager had started.

Most of the staff spoken with did not feel there were sufficient staff to provide the level of care and support they would like to. A member of care staff said, “It could be better. We do have agency but they are regular and they’re very good. It’s a good team.” Another member of care staff said, “Staffing is very poor.” They went on to describe how this had affected the delivery of care and support. Staff told us they received good supervision and training. A member of staff said, “I’ve had good opportunities. They’re good with development. When we get the time to do it, it’s good.” The registered manager told us they used a dependency tool to assess the number of staff required. This was reviewed regularly and staffing was increased if people’s needs changed. Events aimed at recruiting more care staff were planned. The registered manager also told us that the way the call bells had been operating had caused the bell to ring for extended periods of time which gave the impression they were not being answered. How call bells operated and the staff culture around answering call bells was being addressed.

During our first inspection visit we observed occasions where staff were not available when people needed support. The registered manager told us that they were reviewing how staff were deployed in the service which would address our concerns. During our second inspection visit we observed staff to be deployed appropriately and people were having their needs met. We observed staff provide care and support in a respectful and dignified way. During our inspection visits we did not hear call bells ringing for extended periods.

We found some minor gaps in checks the service had carried out when recruiting staff. We discussed this with the management team and found this had been addressed with a new system which had been implemented for new staff before our inspection.

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.