Old School 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

Safeguarding concerns were generally referred to the local authority, as required. We found 1 incident had not been referred. Risks to people’s health and safety were managed well. People said they felt safe at the service and there were enough staff to meet their needs. However, when the registered manager or deputy were not on duty, there was no one taking responsibility for the home to lead and co-ordinate shifts and provide accountability for the home.

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 said they felt safe at the service. Relatives spoke positively about their family members’ care. Comments included “She is in the safest place for her,” “We feel that (family member) is very safe where they are” and “They are so kind there and we have never seen anything to cause us concern.” Relatives told us staff responded well when people showed distressed behaviours. For example, 1 relative said “The carers speak to her very calmly if she is (distressed).” Another relative described an incident where a person hit a staff member: “Carers dealt with it quickly and very well from what I saw."

Staff told us they received safeguarding training and were encouraged to report any concerns about people’s well-being. They were able to identify possible indicators of abuse and had been informed of external agencies they could contact if they had concerns about practices at the home.

There were safeguarding procedures to advise staff on processes to follow. There were also posters around the home advising staff of action to take if they had concerns about people’s welfare. One safeguarding issue had not been referred to the local authority. In discussion with the registered manager, they had not considered the incident a safeguarding concern but said they now understood the rationale for reporting this type of event.

Staff told us they were not aware of unsafe practices at the home. They told us appropriate actions were taken in response to risks, such as providing the correct consistency of diet for people at risk of choking. They told us care plans were updated if people fell regularly and equipment such as sensor mats was put in place, if needed.

We did not observe any concerns about how risks were managed during our visit to the service.

People were assisted safely by staff, for example, when repositioning. One relative told us how a risk to their family member’s health was managed well. They said after a recent occurrence of the health risk “They check regularly now and react quickly if there are any signs.”

Care planning processes included assessment of risks to people’s health and well-being. These assessments were regularly reviewed. People were provided with equipment and referred to other agencies where necessary.

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 told us they felt supported in their roles and received regular supervision and training. They said they felt there were sufficient staffing levels to meet people’s care needs.

Safe recruitment practices were followed to ensure staff were suitable to work at the service. Staffing rotas were maintained to ensure there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Arrangements were in place to cover the rota at short notice, such as covering staff sickness. In discussion with the registered manager, we found there were no checks carried out to ensure staff were competent to carry out safe moving and handling practices. The registered manager showed us a' generalised care competency checklist' they were intending to introduce, to ensure staff followed safe practices, including moving and handling.

One relative commented “If I have visited during the week, there seem to be staff around, but there are definitely fewer if I go at weekends. They do seem to interact with residents though.” Another relative told us “Staff…are very welcoming and there is always someone around to speak to if I want to know anything.” A further relative said “All the staff know (family member) well and how best to care for (them).” A relative told us “I could see how patient and caring staff were and really understood their likes and dislikes.” A further relative said “There are always staff around when I go and they understand (family member’s) strengths and their challenges and how to deal with them.”

We observed there were staff available to meet people’s needs. However, there was no member of staff taking responsibility or leadership of the service when the registered manager or deputy were not present, such as when we first arrived at the home. This could impact upon response to emergencies and ensuring all tasks were completed on a shift.

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.