Barton Place Nursing Home

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 felt safe from the risk of harm or abuse and staff knew how to identify and manage safeguarding. Staff supported people who had capacity to make decisions about risk. Risk assessments were completed to promote independence and minimise risks to people. Additional professional support and clear risk plans were obtained where needed. Care plans were clear and detailed with sufficient guidance for staff to keep people as safe as possible. There were sufficient, safely recruited staff who had received training to meet peoples’ needs.

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 felt safe with the staff that supported them. We saw kind and respectful interactions between people and staff. The lounge was arranged to optimise supervision, but improvements could be made for people living with dementia, and to make the environment more homely.

People were safeguarded from harm and abuse. Staff were trained and there were systems to report, record and review any concerns. Staff worked in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) with people who lacked mental capacity to make their own decisions supported in their best interests. Appropriate legal authorisations and independent advocates were in place.

We saw people were comfortable with staff who recognised when there was potential conflict where some people were living with dementia. Staff knew people well and responded kindly.

People were safeguarded from harm and abuse. Staff were trained and there were systems to report, record and review any concerns. Staff worked in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) with people who lacked mental capacity to make their own decisions supported in their best interests. Appropriate legal authorisations and independent advocates were in place.

People who were able told us staff helped them feel safe without minimising their independence. They felt able to move freely around the home and spend the day as they wished. Most people were living with complex dementia and required supervision with mobilising safely. Relatives did not always feel involved in risk and care planning. We fed this back to the registered manager.

Staff felt well supported by the management team and clinical lead. Risk assessments and care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure information was shared and staff were up to date.

Staff were visible and knew how peoples’ risks were managed. Staff ensured there were enough staff to support people if they showed they wished to mobilise and were unaware of risk. Pressure care was well managed with daily reviews and appropriate equipment to minimise risk. Staff worked hard to manage complex needs where some people were not always able to understand their needs and subsequent support.

People had detailed risk management plans, with risk discussed daily in head of department meetings and actions taken. Emergency evacuation plans were in place with information including use of specialist mattresses. External professionals’ advice was sought to ensure all risks were managed.

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 said they like the staff supporting them and support was available in a timely way. Records showed regular checks for people and clear monitoring checked throughout the day with the registered manager and clinical lead having good oversight.

Staff said there was enough staff to meet peoples’ needs. For example, two staff were always available in the communal spaces to ensure people were safe relating to mobility and safe interactions with others.

Staff were visible throughout our visit providing timely care and support. For example, many people required assistance with mobility and continence management and those needs were met. Staff agreed there were sufficient staffing numbers, based on peoples’ needs, with a supportive ancillary and management team.

People were supported by staff who had been safely recruited. Staff received regular supervision, appraisal and support and records were up to date.

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.

People were not able to tell us their experience with medicines but we saw staff administering medicines carefully and in a kind and unrushed way.

Staff confirmed they had received medicines training recently as the service had moved to an electronic system which was working well. This reduced the risk of medicine errors showing alerts when a medicine was due or late. Records were completed well with no gaps. People had received regular medicine reviews to ensure they were prescribed minimal medicines to support them effectively.

There were detailed records about ‘as and when’ medicines to ensure staff only administered these when necessary. For example, showing how staff could support managing anxiety for individuals. There were the appropriate arrangements for safe management, use and oversight of controlled drugs.