Cosin Lodge

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. A relative told us they were informed and involved if there were any concerns about their family member’s safety. Staff were knowledgeable about any actions taken and changes made to people’s care in response to safety incidents or concerns. A staff member told us, “I feel supported by both the manager and operations manager when managing accidents and incidents.”

The provider 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. A relative told us staff were proactive in involving health professionals in their family member’s care. Staff told us there was a coordinated approach with healthcare partners. A staff member told us, “The Service works well with both relatives and other professionals. Important information is shared to both professionals and relatives.” Where transitions between services had happened, these had been planned in collaboration with other services and professionals. The registered manager told us they had a good relationship with professionals and external services. The service used an enhanced health service for care homes, which provided 7 day a week support from a nurse and reduced the need for people to wait for GP appointments. Staff also used this service to have weekly telephone calls with a health professional about people’s health and welfare.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

During the assessment no one expressed any concerns over people’s safety or safeguarding. A relative and an advocate told us they felt that people were safe, and any concerns would be acted on. Staff had training and a good understanding of what to do to make sure people were protected from harm or abuse. One staff member told us, “I’m confident concerns would be acted upon.” The management team ensured DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) authorisations were sought when needed and any conditions imposed by them were followed. DoLS are a legal framework applying to people who lack the mental capacity to consent to the arrangements for their care and are intended to protect people from harm.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Staff told us how they involved people in their own care and support and enabled them to take informed risks. Up to date risk assessments were in place explaining how risks could be reduced and managed. An advocate told us, “I think [person] feels safe and staff understand their needs well.” Risks were regularly reviewed. For example, staff told us how they had involved professionals in re-assessing one person’s specialised diet as they believed risks had reduced. This allowed the person to eat more textured food and gave them greater choice over their meals. The registered manager told us this person “has thrived”.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The home was well maintained and there were processes in place to check on equipment and facilities. A relative, advocate and staff told us they had no concerns about the environment, and it supported people’s needs.

There were enough staff to support people to do things for themselves and to take part in activities of their choice. A relative told us, “They take [person] out as much as they can. Staffing is at a good level”.

The provider 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. Recruitment practices were meeting requirements. Staff told us they felt supported in their roles including having regular supervision and training. Staff were trained in a variety of subjects relevant to their roles and the needs of the people they supported.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff appropriately followed the required infection control guidelines. The home was clean and tidy, and management made regular checks to ensure staff followed infection prevention and control practices.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. Medicines were administered as prescribed. Staff administering medicines had appropriate training. Staff ensured medicines were reviewed if people’s needs changed, and in line with ‘Stopping over medication of people with a learning disability and autistic people (STOMP)’