Heron Court

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

There were processes in place to protect people from the risk of abuse or harm, and these contributed to people's safety. The service assessed risks associated with people's care and support when they first moved into the service, and these were reviewed regularly. Staffing levels were sufficient on the day of the assessment to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff were recruited safely. The registered manager had regular checks and audits in place for cleanliness and infection control. The service was clean. Medicines were managed safely.

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 their relatives told us they felt safe. A person told us, “I feel safe here and I couldn’t ask for more.” A relative said, “I definitely think [Family member] is safe. They had a fall and it was dealt with really well.”

Staff had all received training in how to follow the safeguarding process and could describe how they would report suspected abuse. They were confident any concerns would be taken seriously and acted on. A staff member told us, “To protect the person and make sure they are free from abuse, I would report to the manager. We could also go to the local council or CQC.”

Throughout the assessment 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 kept good oversight of all safeguarding referrals and shared these with staff to ensure lessons were learned to prevent any reoccurrences. Safeguarding and whistleblowing information was clearly displayed within the service, so people, relatives and staff had information about reporting processes.

People and relatives told us they were involved in managing risks. A person told us, “I have a wheelchair to go out in – although it’s a lot of work for the staff as I have to be hoisted each time into my wheelchair, but they do it for me.”

Staff told us there were good systems in place to understand people’s risks. A staff member told us, “When we come in, we have a handover and we talk about each resident including any risks, I also talk with colleagues.” The registered manager told us, “During the assessment we will discuss any risks with the person and ask their advice and input. We have good involvement with families. We make sure any equipment needed is in place.”

Throughout the inspection 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 information about risk. We noted some elements of the care plan had not always been updated to reflect the current risk. However, staff knew people very well and were aware of the current information, so this had not impacted upon people negatively. The registered manager told us they would immediately review the care plans.

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

People and relatives told us staff provided support when they needed it. A person told us, “The staff couldn’t do more for you, they are kind and caring.” Another person said, If I use the call bell, they are reasonably prompt.” A relative told us, “Whenever I visit there always seems to be enough staff around.”

Staff told us there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. A staff member told us, “We do not use agency and if someone calls in sick we can always manage to cover shifts. This is the same at weekends.” Another staff member said, “There is enough staff, it depends on the residents, occasionally we will be busy, but staff come and help from the other side.”

There was enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Our observation showed call bells were responded to in a timely way, staff were not rushed and had time to interact with people in a positive way.

The registered manager used a dependency tool to assist them to work out how many staff were needed to meet people’s needs. They told us, “Last year there was only 4 staff in the morning, we requested an extra member of staff, and this was granted. The extra person helps.” Staff had completed a range of training to meet people’s needs. The training was updated regularly. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place. A professional told us, “There are always staff available throughout the home to support residents and visiting health professionals alike. Care staff are always accommodating to health professionals visiting the home at any date/times that are offered and are on hand to support health professionals during the review of residents with any information that is required.”

People and relatives told us they were happy with the cleanliness at the service. A person told us, “My room is kept clean and tidy.” A relative said, “The home is very clean, it never smells and [family members] room is always clean.”

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities around infection prevention and control. A staff member told us, “We have red bag system for the laundry which I follow, and I have completed infection control training.”

We observed staff practice during the assessment and staff used personal protective equipment appropriately. The service and its equipment was observed to be clean and checked regularly by staff.

There was an effective approach to assessing and managing the risk of infection, which is in line with current relevant national guidance. Infection control audits were carried out regularly and any shortfalls were addressed promptly.

People told us they were happy with the way staff supported them with their medicines. A relative said, “I have been there when they are doing the medicine round, they seem to do it really well.”

Staff responsible for administering medicines had received appropriate training and their competencies were assessed regularly. A staff member told us, “We document if a person refuses and explain what the medicine is.” We asked another staff member what they would do if an error occurred. They told us, “I would go to line manager, seek advice from the GP, 999 or 111. I would document the information and monitor the resident.”

People were receiving their medicines when they should. The provider was following safe systems for the receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines. For medicines given as required, for example, pain relief, there were up to date protocols in place. Medicines were audited daily and monthly, and shortfalls or actions were documented and addressed. The external pharmacy provider had recently completed an audit with minimal recommendations.