George Hythe House

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 assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. At our last assessment the provider had failed to robustly assess the risks relating to the health safety and welfare of people. This was a breach of regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 12.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were supported within a culture of safety and learning. Incidents were reviewed and positive learning was shared within the staff team. One person told us, “Staff are good here, always around, listen to you and always help you.” However, we received mixed feedback from people and their relatives indicating that not everyone was satisfied concerns were responded to promptly. For example, 1 relative told us, “I have raised issues but now I have given up and we are in the process of looking for an alternative home with nursing.”

People were supported by staff and leaders that embraced change and fostered a positive learning culture. One staff member told us, “I am confident in raising concerns. Managers and senior carers respond and take issues seriously.”

Processes at the service promoted a positive learning culture, and the registered manager worked diligently with staff to foster good working relationships. However, the provider’s processes were not always effective at ensuring regulatory concerns were responded to constructively. We identified gaps in relation to fluid monitoring and repositioning records and raised these with the provider as part of this assessment. The provider’s initial communications did not identify satisfactory actions to ensure necessary improvements. However, during our assessment, we identified appropriate actions had been taken to drive improvement.

People were mostly supported by safe systems. However, we found that in some instances staff did not always have access to up-to-date guidance in people’s care plans and risk assessments. For example, 1 person required support with catheter care, but there was no related information available within their care plan on how to meet this need. We raised this with the provider, and they responded by creating a detailed care plan.

The registered manager and care staff knew people’s needs well and what support they required. One staff member told us, “We monitor people well especially those at risk of falls. There are enough staff to keep an eye on people too.”

Feedback from partner agencies supported our findings that care plans were not always kept up to date, but people received the care they required.

Processes were not always effective at ensuring people’s records were up-to-date and accurately reflected their needs. The registered manager and provider told us they were in the process of transferring people’s information over to a new digital system and would review details where required.

People were kept safe by effective safeguarding systems. However, we received mixed feedback from people and their relatives. One person told us, “I feel safe here. I haven’t had any problems. Staff are good here, always around, listen to you and always help you.” However, 1 relative told us, “All the residents are quite mixed. Men walk in and out of [relative’s] room.”

Staff were trained in safeguarding and understood how to identify and escalate signs of abuse.

We observed people being treated with respect and cared for safely.

Processes were in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse.

Most people told us they felt well supported and that care they received was safe. One person told us, “I like it here and don’t feel unsafe or frightened of anything. I have my walker, they clean and look after it. The same for my wheelchair when I go out. Staff help me when I need it, they are a lovely bunch.”

Staff told us they felt people were well supported and risk was managed well.

We saw people receiving care appropriate to their needs by staff who treated them with compassion and kindness.

Risks related to people’s care needs were assessed and measures were in place to keep them safe. However, we found that in some instances risk assessments did not always contain up-to-date information about people’s care needs. For example, 1 person’s falls risk assessment did not accurately reflect required support when mobilising with the use of a walking aid.

People were satisfied the environment was safe. However, we did receive some concerns about people’s personal items going missing.

Staff and leaders were responsive to feedback about the environment. For example, we raised some concerns about the cleanliness of the kitchen. Staff responded immediately to improve the environment.

We found people were being supported in safe environments with well maintained equipment appropriate for their needs.

Environmental checks and audits supported the provision of a safe living environment for people.

People were supported by enough well trained and competent staff who responded to people in a timely manner. We found there were suitable levels of staff present during our inspection and people were not kept waiting when they needed support. Feedback from people supported our observations. For example, 1 person told us, “There is always plenty of staff around. You can always approach staff, they are very friendly.” However, not everyone was satisfied with their experience of staff availability. For example, 1 relative told us, “[Relative] has complex care needs and there doesn’t seem to always be enough staff around.”

Staff were positive about the support they provided to people and felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. One staff member told us, “We monitor people well especially those at risk of falls. There are enough staff to keep an eye on people too.”

Enough staff were present to meet people's needs during our inspection visits. However, we did note fluctuating demand at certain times of day.

Processes were in place to ensure suitable staffing levels were in place and staff received appropriate training to meet people’s needs. For example, dependency assessments were completed to assess the level of support people required and a training matrix was used to monitor and ensure staff compliance with training.

People were supported in a clean and pleasant living environment. One person told us, “It’s very clean here.” Another person told us, “My room is cleaned daily.”

Staff demonstrate genuine care for the people and the environment and told us they thought the service was kept clean and tidy. Staff used PPE when required and followed suitable infection and prevention protocols.

We found communal areas of the service and people’s private bedrooms to be very clean and tidy. Housekeeping staff were very polite and did their job effectively. Care staff helped keep the service clean. Food preparation and cooking areas in the kitchen were visibly clean. However, we found some areas of the kitchen that required improvements in cleanliness. For example, some storage shelves were visibly dirty, there were insects and other debris on window screens, a handwash basin was visibly brown with engrained dirt, and some hard-to-reach surfaces were coated with dirt and grime. We raised these concerns with the provider and some immediate improvements were made.

Processes were in place to support effective infection prevention and control. However, some improvements were required in kitchen cleanliness oversight.

People were supported with their daily prescribed medicines. We observed safe medicines practices being maintained by staff.

Staff received training and completed competency assessments before they were allowed to administer medicines. Staff told us they felt medicines were well managed at the service and that they felt well supported by senior staff and the registered manager.

Effective processes were in place to ensure safe medicine administration. For example, medicine administration records were completed and audited to ensure people received their prescribed medicines. Safe storage protocols were in place, and the provider maintained good oversight of medicines through the use of effective digital systems.