Goodwood Orchard Care 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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They 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, “I think things have improved. We initially had concerns around pressures sores and incidents. The manager acted on this, retrained staff and things have got so much better over the last year, staff provide good skin care and moving and handling support. We have no concerns now.”

The service 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, including when people moved between different services. A person described how staff had worked with them and other agencies to help them to manage their health condition and increase their independence with a view to moving to more independent living now a viable option for them.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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 service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff and the provider understood how to recognise the signs and what to do if they suspected someone was at risk of abuse or neglect. The provider protected people’s liberties and rights under the Mental Capacity Act.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. For example, people were supported to take risks that enhanced their quality of life, such as going out independently. We identified 2 people who may benefit from an in-situ hoist sling to improve their comfort during support with transitions. The registered manager arranged for assessments immediately following our site visit.

The service did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. We identified areas of the premises that required maintenance and replacement, including flooring, shower handle rail and adjustment of fire doors. The provider had plans for refurbishment and replacement with works scheduled imminently; however, audits and checks had not identified all areas or resulted in timely action being taken. The registered manager acted on our immediate concerns following our site visit.

The service 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. A relative told us, “I think there are enough staff now; they all seem better trained now and work hard to look after people.”

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was readily available to staff and staff were observed to use this in line with best practice guidance.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were managed safely and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened, through regular reviews with health professionals. Care staff and training records confirmed staff had received medication administration training and had their competency assessed on a regular basis.