Eversfield 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

Safety risks to people were now assessed and better managed. People’s care records had been improved and staff had up to date information about how to manage risk to people. Staff understood how to reduce risk to keep people safe from injury or harm. The environment was now safer for people. Medicines management and administration had been improved and people received their medicine as prescribed. There were enough staff to support people with their needs. The home manager reviewed staffing levels regularly to make sure there were enough suitably skilled and experienced staff on duty at all times. Staff received relevant training to meet people’s needs. They were well supported through supervision and appraisal to continuously learn and improve their working practice. Recruitment checks were robust and ensured only staff deemed suitable and fit, would be employed to support people at the service.

This service scored 62 (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.

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

Staff understood risks to people and made sure people understood how these would be managed, to keep them safe. A staff member told us, “I explain to people what I’m doing and helping them understand how I will do this safely. It’s important to make sure people understand. If someone wanted to do something that wasn’t so safe I would explain that to the person and help them understand what the risk was. But if people still wanted to take that risk I wouldn’t stop them.” Another staff member said, “I talk to people using simple language to help people understand. People are intelligent and they do understand what the risks are. If people wanted to do something, if they were independent I wouldn’t stop them, but I would still explain why it might not be safe.”

People were supported by staff to stay safe at the service. We observed staff helped people to move safely around the environment to enable people to do the things they wanted to do, for example, take part in mealtimes or activities of their choosing. Staff were patient and kind, and made sure people moved at a pace of their choosing. Staff offered positive encouragement and support to people to help them move with confidence.

People’s records now contained current information about risks to their safety and guidance for staff on how to manage these to keep people safe, whilst still enabling people to do the things that mattered to them. People had been involved in making decisions about risks to their safety and wellbeing and how these would be managed.

People were informed about risks to their safety and wellbeing and understood how these would be managed. One person told us, “I have had a couple of falls here and that is why they say I must always have someone with me if I want to walk. I’ve got this frame to help with moving.”

Processes had been improved to ensure regular checks on the safety and suitability of the environment. Any areas identified as requiring improvement were addressed in a timely manner.

The provider had made the environment safer for people. Restrictors were now fitted to windows in people’s rooms, to reduce the risk of people falling from height. Fire doors had been alarmed to warn staff if people had exited through these on to the external fire escape. The fire escape route had been made safer with non-grip material to reduce the risk of people slipping and falling. A barrier had been installed to reduce the risk of people accessing the flat roof when using the fire escape. The rest of the environment was clean, tidy and free from slip or trip hazards. Staff were confident using equipment when supporting people, for example, when moving and transferring people. Equipment appeared in good order.

We spent time with people to learn more about their experiences of using the service. People’s feedback did not highlight any concerns they had about the safety of the environment.

Staff understood risks posed to people by the environment and how these should be managed. A staff member told us, “I make sure the area is clean and clear and if something is in the way I would remove it. I make sure there are no things in people’s way that would harm them.” Staff knew how to use equipment appropriately when supporting people, to keep people safe. A staff member told us, “You need to know what equipment people use and make sure you are using this correctly, making sure there are no hazards.” The home manager said, “Staff are all trained to look at equipment and make sure it’s safe to use.”

There were enough skilled and experienced staff to support people and meet their needs. People spoke positively about the staff team supporting them. One person told us, “They (staff) know that I’m ok. They keep a lookout for me. I’m not sure if they are short staffed but they can be in a rush, needing to get things done before they move on to the next job. Having said that if I do use the call bell I never really have to wait long…I think they are well trained.” A relative said, “I think it is a good place. The staff here are a lot more caring…they really seem dedicated to their job. I think that is the most important thing – the kindness of the carers.”

We observed staff responded quickly to people’s requests for help. Staff were present and observant when people were moving around to make sure people were safe. Staff looked in on people who chose to spend time in their rooms or in quieter spaces around the service to check if people needed anything.

Staff worked well together to make sure people’s needs were met. A staff member told us, “If someone calls in sick then that can have an effect so we make changes to accommodate and there is very good team work here.” Another staff member said, “We can get short staffed when people go off sick but we come together and support each other.” Staff received relevant training, and were supported through supervision, to help them provide safe and effective care to people. A staff member told us, “We have training quite often. We meet every 2 to 3 months with the manager. It is helpful.” Another staff member said, “There’s been a lot (of training) the last 12 months. I meet with the home manager every 2 months. This can be useful as you can talk privately to your manager.” The home manager told us there were no staff vacancies at the service. They said, “There are no vacancies. If we’re short we can call on our team of bank staff. We don’t use agency.”

Safe recruitment practices were in place to ensure suitable staff were employed. Systems were in place to review staffing levels and ensure there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. The manager had introduced a regular programme of training to ensure staff’s skills and knowledge remained up to date. A programme of spot checks and supervision sessions had also been introduced to ensure staff were supported in their role and provided with high quality care.

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 supported to take their medicines when they needed them. One person told us, “I do take medication regularly and that all gets delivered on time.” Another person said, “They do tell me what I’m taking and if there are any changes to my medication.”

Medicines management and administration had improved. Medicines stocks, balances and records showed people now consistently received the medicines prescribed to them. Staff practice in relation to record keeping had improved. However, we observed one aspect of staff practice did not reflect current and relevant best practice. People’s medicines were dispensed from their original packaging into plastic pots and then taken by staff to people’s rooms to be administered. This is not good practice as it increased the risk of a mistake being made or unnecessary waste if people refused to take them. We discussed this with the home manager who acted immediately and changed these arrangements during our site visit, which mitigated further risk.

Staff had been provided training and were confident supporting people with their medicines. A staff member told us, “When I’m doing medicines, I make sure people get the right medication, the right dose and at the right time. I feel comfortable and confident administering medicines.” The home manager told us they sought advice and support from the relevant health care professionals to make sure people’s behaviour was not being inappropriately controlled by medicines.