Prior Bank 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 from abuse and possible harm. Staff received safeguarding training and demonstrated a clear understanding about how to recognise and report abuse and poor care. The registered manager understood their responsibility to refer any safeguarding matters to the appropriate agencies. Individual risk assessments were completed for people so that identifiable risks were managed. The service was in the process of introducing electronic care plans. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Safe staffing levels were in place. Staff were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. Robust recruitment procedures in place so people were cared for by suitably qualified staff who had been assessed as safe to work with people. The approach to assessing and managing the risk of infection required attention. The audit tool being used had not identified some areas that needed cleaning or maintaining or change of practice. The registered manager took immediate action in response to our feedback.

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.

There were effective systems, processes and practices to make sure people were protected from abuse and neglect. The service had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The service was aware of the need to and had submitted applications for people to assess and authorise that any restrictions in place were in the best interests of the person.

People told us they felt safe at Prior Bank House and they were consistently treated with kindness, dignity and respect. This was reflected in the feedback received from relatives.

We observed a positive, welcoming and inclusive culture within the service. Staff responded to people's calls for assistance in a timely manner.

Staff were able to recognise possible signs of abuse and knew how to report such concerns promptly. There was a commitment to taking immediate action to keep people safe from abuse and neglect. This included working with partners in a collaborative way.

People were involved in the assessment of their needs and the management of their risks where able. People believed staff would respond to their needs quickly and efficiently, especially if they were in pain, discomfort, or distress.

Staff promoted people's safety and independence. People’s care plans were regularly reviewed and in response to any change in needs.

We observed staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and preferences and how to manage people's risks.

Risks were identified and managed. However, some documentation could be improved. We discussed this with the registered manager, who assured us this would be rectified when all care plans were on the electronic system. The current two systems meant things were recorded in different places. The new system would ensure consistency.

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 felt well supported in their role and received relevant training. Staff told us there were safe staffing levels at the service.

Relatives told us there was a calm atmosphere at the service and there was always enough staff available to meet people’s needs.

There were enough staff deployed at the service so people received consistently safe, good quality care that met their needs.

There were safe recruitment processes in place. Effective systems were in place to ensure safe staffing levels were maintained at the service. Records showed that staff received training relevant to their role. Staff received the support they needed to deliver safe care. This included supervision, appraisal and support to develop.

We observed some areas of the service were not well maintained or kept clean. The audit tool being used did not identify some areas that required attention. Following our site visit the registered manager carried out a full audit and sent us confirmation of when works would be completed. The provider has committed to completing these promptly. Staff have also reviewed the IPC policy and dress code to ensure compliance.

The approach to assessing and managing the risk of infection required attention. The audit tool being used had not identified some areas that needed cleaning or maintaining or change of practice. The registered manager took immediate action in response to our feedback.

Staff had completed infection control and food hygiene training.

People and relatives did not share any concerns about infection control. People were able to receive visitors in line with best practise guidance.

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