Hulcott 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 were protected from harm. Staff understood how to keep people safe and escalate any concerns. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed to prevent a reoccurrence. Where necessary, action was taken to inform the appropriate authorities.

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 in the home. Comments included, “Yes, I do feel safe living here. I know that there is always someone there for me and that someone will always help me if I need help.” This was supported by what visitors and family members told us. Comments included, “Safe, absolutely, the staff are always very open with us, even the slightest thing at all you know you are going to get that phone call to update you, all the staff seem to treat you like you are important.”

Records showed appropriate action was taken if abuse was suspected. The local authority was notified as well as CQC.

Staff had received training on how to recognise abuse and what to do if concerns were noted. Staff told us they would not hesitate to raise a concern with the management or external parties.

We observed staff supported people in safe way. We found staff promoted safety by checking on people throughout the day and night. We did not find people were subject to unnecessary restrictions on their movement. Where restrictions were in place these were lawful. We found staff had an open culture in discussing safeguarding concerns.

People and their relatives told us they felt they were at less risk of harm than they were prior to moving to the home. One family member told us, “I consider that she [relative] is safe. I say that because of how things are whenever we turn up, there are no problems and if there has ever been a problem, they phone us up, give us the background and tell us what is happening. They treat us as part of the family here and we know that she is being looked after properly.” People told us they were involved in managing their own risk, for instance, one person who is at high risk of falls told us “They always make sure they walk with me.”

Individual risk assessments were in place to protect people when receiving care and support. General risk assessments were designed to protect people from the risk of slips and falls and the environment.

We observed staff supported people in safe way. People who were at risk of pressure damage or risk of falling from bed had appropriate equipment in place.

Staff we spoke with were aware of the risk posed to people. We noted any new risks were discussed at daily meetings to ensure staff were aware of what actions to take to prevent harm to people. Staff told us they had access to risk assessments, and they were updated when any changes in people’s needs occurred.

People told us regular fire alarm testing was carried out. One person was particularly aware. They told us, “I feel safe, I do, I have seen them [carer] carry out procedures when the Fire Alarms go off…. The alarm went the other morning while I was being dressed by a carer, the door slammed shut and off he [carer] went to muster." Another person told us “I don’t worry about being able to get out if there was a fire.”

We observed areas of the home required ongoing maintenance and updating of fixtures and fittings, such as furniture and décor. The provider was aware.

Systems were in place to ensure the equipment and services such as gas and electric were regularly serviced and inspected. Audits had been undertaken to ensure the safety of equipment. However, the audits showed concerns had not always been addressed promptly and we found the issue with the kitchen door not closing identified two months ago was still ongoing. This meant people were exposed to the risk of harm from fire. We raised this with the provider who reassured us this would be addressed

Staff engaged in regular fire alarm tests and drills. Staff told us a lot of work had gone into additional fire drills since the last inspection. We observed staff raise concerns to senior staff about equipment failure.

We observed people’s needs were met by the staff. Call bells were answered in a timely manner.

Staff who provided feedback told us they worked well as a team. We found staff were allocated duties on a daily basis.

Staff were trained and competency assessments were completed in some areas such as the administration of medicines to ensure they could complete tasks safely.

People told us about their experience of staff numbers. No-one had any concerns about how they were responded to by staff. People told us they had access to a call bell. Comments included, “Yes, they [carers] are always encouraging me to use it but I tend not to use it unless I have to.” Another person told us “The nurses here are very good and thorough at what they do.”

We observed some areas of the home required further maintenance, for example, we saw plaster and tiles missing from walls and floors in a bathroom and toilets. This had the potential for spread of infections, due to the inability of effective cleaning. We found improvements had been made in the laundry area as identified from our last inspection. There were good systems in place in the laundry to manage the risk of cross infection. Where the staff highlighted safety defects in equipment and raised them to the provider, the provider did not always act on this feedback in a timely manner. We observed staff did not always comply with the provider’s infection control and uniform policy and we raised this with the manager.

People did not raise any concerns about the risk of infections.

Processes were in place to ensure the premises were clean and hygienic. We could see improvements had been made since the last inspection. However, there have been considerable time delays in repairs being carried out. This left the building vulnerable to a build-up of bacteria on surfaces that were difficult to clean, because they had not been maintained, for instance, peeling plaster.

Staff who provided feedback told us they were aware of the infection control policy.

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