Southlands Place

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

Safeguarding procedures were in place and were effective in protecting people from the risk of harm or abuse. Staff recruitment practices were followed which ensured staff were suitable for their roles. Staffing levels and skills were appropriate and staff received support and ongoing training to ensure they provided good quality care. People were consulted and involved in the planning of their care, and staff had clear guidance to follow on how to best support people.

This service scored 75 (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 when supported by staff and could easily raise concerns if necessary. We observed staff reassuring people when they were upset, and we observed people were happy and relaxed in their company. One person told us, “I feel safer here than I was at home, I’m as safe as can be – the staff are very kind.”

Staff had received training about abuse and told us how they would raise any concerns. Staff knew people well and this would enable them to see early indicators of unease or distress. Staff felt confident to raise any concerns to the management team. One said, “It would 100% be dealt with, I could use the whistleblowing line.” Another told us if they were to report abuse, “The manager we have would take it very seriously.”

There were effective processes and procedures in place to ensure people were safe from the risk of harm or abuse. Staff were up to date with their safeguarding training and had a good understanding of the topic and could tell us the procedures they were to follow if they had concerns. The registered manager escalated concerns appropriately with the local authority and notified CQC as required. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard applications were completed and followed up as required by the registered manager.

We saw staff supported people in a way that reduced known risks relating to mobility, eating and drinking and other daily living activities. Staff assisted people in a cheerful and friendly manner, and used a personalised approach that demonstrated they knew people well. We saw staff inviting a person to freshen up, and this was done in a thoughtful and dignified way. Where people were assisted to move using hoisting equipment, we saw that staff were very attentive by adjusting clothing to ensure privacy at all times.

People told us they felt involved in decision making about their care and support. They said staff knew them well and supported them with daily tasks such as managing finances, keeping appointments, and arranging for specialists to visit when required. One person said, “they went through everything with me and my daughter.”

Staff knew and understood about people’s risks well. Staff told us where they would find the information that they needed, and told us about some of the assessment tools that they use to monitor and record issues of concern, for example when a person is at risk of pressure sores. Staff understood their responsibility to record and report changes or concerns to senior members of staff, so they could be acted upon without delay.

Care plans were personalised and there was ongoing work to improve them further with enhanced detail relating to people’s own aims and goals. Risk assessments were recorded and showed a positive approach to risk which would encourage people to remain as independent as possible. Records showed that specialists were consulted for additional guidance and advice and regular reviews were carried out with those professionals and families where appropriate.

Records showed there was a robust schedule for ongoing maintenance of the building and environment. We saw that where there were repairs or alterations in progress, these were clearly recorded with a detailed plan of action. The provider had an up to date contingency plan in place with clear details of how arrangements had been made by the provider with a neighbouring service to support one another in the event of an emergency evacuation being necessary.

During our visit to the service we saw the home was well maintained and clean. We saw equipment displayed labels to show when it was last serviced and fire requirements were being met with clear approaches to exits and clear signage for people to follow in the event of an emergency.

Staff were knowledgeable about risks within the care environment. They told us how they have regular fire drills and that there is an ongoing schedule of maintenance for equipment, furniture and the general environment. Leaders and staff consider how environments can keep people safe from psychological harm as well as physical harm, for example in relation to sexual safety and in relation to sensory needs.

People told us they felt the environment was safe. One said, "I feel safe, my room is checked daily, its clean and all the equipment works"

Records showed staff were recruited safely, and appropriate checks had been made before appointing staff. There were systems in place to ensure staff received the training they needed to support the people in their care, and their knowledge was regularly refreshed through training sessions. The provider used a dependency tool which helped them to ensure their staffing levels were adequate to meet people’s changing needs. This was reviewed on a daily basis. There was a small team of activity staff who provided activities, one to one engagement and visits out of the home. The provider told us they were reviewing their activity provision for people who stayed in their rooms, to increase opportunities for those people to have more interaction and company with others.

Staff told us they are busier at certain times of day, but they felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff said they have regular meetings as a group and individually, and feel well supported. Staff said, “They are always offering us more training – they are very supportive.” The staff we spoke with said they are encouraged to discuss problems and contribute with their views and ideas. “They are open and willing to listen”, staff told us.

People told us they felt well supported by the staff, and that there were enough staff to assist them. One person said the staff were, "very good at their job, I need help and they do it well, I am well looked after ."

We saw people were responded to promptly when they used their bell to call for support. We saw there were hospitality team staff who responded to call bells, serviced drinks and assisted with meal times. This meant care staff were able to concentrate on delivering care and support.

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.

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