Chandler 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

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good. 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. Staff were recruited safely. The registered provider reduced the number of hours covered by agency staff. Medicines were managed safely. People were protected from the risk of infection. The service was clean, smelt fresh and was in good decorative order. Staff were wearing PPE appropriately when needed.

This service scored 66 (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 told us they felt safe living at Chandler Court. One person told us, “I do feel safe”. Another person’s relative told us, “I have no issues about her safety here”. We saw staff consulting people before providing care and support. Staff were attentive to people’s needs and ensured people were safe.

All staff, including agency staff, told us they had undertaken relevant and current training in recognising and reporting abuse, which was reflected in relevant records. Staff showed a good understanding of safeguarding. They were confident to report any concerns they may have to the management and they were sure that these would be addressed and acted on promptly. A member of staff told us, “If I had any concerns, I would go straight to the manager or to the nurse on shift. [Name] is safeguarding lead here”.

People were relaxed and comfortable with staff, each other and within their environment. The atmosphere within the service was welcoming and relaxed. Staff had positive and caring relationships with the people they were supporting.

There were procedures for safeguarding people from abuse. These had been followed and the provider had worked with other agencies, including the local safeguarding authority, to investigate allegations. The provider monitored the progress of safeguarding investigations and took measures to keep people safe in the meantime.

People told us they were supported to take positive risks, and their relatives confirmed this. Positive risk taking is a national guideline that involves working collaboratively with service users to support them to make well-informed and balanced decisions about their care, which take into account the views of their carers and their strengths, values and long-term goals. One person’s relative told us, “We are very involved”. Another person’s relative told us, “We went to a care review meeting recently, it was updating her care plan”. People were supported to take risks and be independent when they wanted.

Staff knew how to support people with risks to their health. For example, staff knew how to recognise and what to do if someone displayed signs of a stroke. Staff were aware of people’s individual risks and could describe strategies to reduce risks to people. Senior staff regularly updated people’s care records and risk assessments. Staff received feedback from the managers about accidents and incidents and what they could do to reduce the risk of harm to people.

We observed safe and appropriate use of equipment during both days of this assessment. People were monitored where necessary, for example when using walking frames or other equipment to help people mobilise. Where wheelchairs were used, these were used safely with footplates in place.

Risks to people had been identified and detailed within a risk assessment for staff to follow. However, some people’s care plans required updating to reflect current best practices. We raised this with the management of the service, and following our visit we were provided with updated care plans. Staff were aware of the risk assessments in place and were able to read them on the electronic care planning system. Risk assessments were reviewed monthly or more often if required.

People lived in a safe environment with equipment and facilities that were suitable to people’s needs. However, during our inspection we noticed that not all people had access to call bells. We raised this with the management of the service who immediately addressed this issue.

They were proactive in mitigating environmental hazards, for example by ensuring people were safe during a heatwave. A member of staff told us, “We provide people with extra fluids, making sure everyone is hydrated”. A member of staff told us, “We provide people with extra fluids, making sure everyone is hydrated”. The environment was safe. We saw that staff used appropriate equipment to assist people and all the equipment was regularly checked and safe to use. Staff told us that whenever they requested maintenance work, this was addressed in a timely manner.

We observed that the environment was safe and dementia friendly. For example, people’s furniture had partially open design so people could see what was inside without having to open it. This means that people with memory loss could see what was inside their drawers and wardrobes instead of constantly opening them to see what was there. The premises were clean without any smells or malodours, and safe for people to use them.

There were effective arrangements to monitor the safety and upkeep of the premises. Processes were in place to identify and log repairs needed in the home. These were monitored and addressed by maintenance staff on site, or external contractors scheduled to visit the home. There was good use of technology to maintain people’s safety with door, floor and chair sensors in place.

People and their relatives provided us with mixed, but mostly positive feedback regarding deployment of staff. While people praised the regular staff, they provided us with mixed feedback about agency staff used by the service. One person told us, “I wanted a shower on Tuesday, I told them, the agency staff didn’t know what to do”. Another person’s relative told us, “They have a lot of agency staff, they don’t do the checks they should be doing”.

We spoke to the management of the service about the use of agency staff. We were provided with evidence that hours covered by agency staff were significantly reduced since the recently recruited registered manager had taken over the post. Staff confirmed that the use of agency had been decreased and that their morale improved resulting in more hours covered by regular staff. A member of staff told us, “People will cover (shifts) and help out if needed, we make it work”.

During our inspection we saw that sufficient numbers of staff were deployed to meet people’s needs safely. Staff were not rushed and had time to stop and interact with people. Call bells and requests for help and support were answered by staff in a timely manner. The atmosphere in the home was calm. We checked staffing rotas for the last 4 weeks which confirmed that staffing levels were safe.

Safe recruitment practices were in place. Staff received training which was appropriate and relevant to their role. There were appropriate checks conducted on agency staff to ensure they were of good character and held appropriate qualifications. Agency staff completed induction before being allowed to work in the service. Staff received formal support such as supervision and checks on their competency.

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 and their relatives told us they were happy with the way staff supported people with their medicines. One person told us, “I have tablets twice a day. They always stay while I take them. I can have pain killers if I need them".

Staff told us they felt medicines were managed safely. Staff had medicines training and there was a system of competency assessments. Staff told us they had sufficient time to manage and handle medicines including ordering, receiving, and managing medicines stocks.

Medicines were safely received, stored, administered and disposed of when no longer needed. For medicines given as required, for example pain relief, there were up-to-date protocols in place. Medicines were regularly audited, and shortfalls or actions were documented and addressed.