Royal Mencap Society - Drummond Court Also known as Drummond Court

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 bullying, harassment, avoidable harm and abuse. Systems were in place to keep people safe. Risks to individuals were managed well so that people were protected, and their freedom was supported and respected. There were enough suitable staff with the right competencies, knowledge, and attitude they needed to keep people safe, meet their needs and promote their rights. Staffing levels were based on the type and level of support each person needed throughout the day and staff were deployed in a way that was consistent with person centred care which included going out and planned activities. Staff received support and development to enable them to meet people’s needs and poor performance was addressed.

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 were happy and safe. One person said, “Love it here, I feel safe, I have no worries. Very nice people I live with. Staff are kind, they look after me.” Relatives told us they were assured their family members were protected and safe at Drummonds Court.

Staff told us, and records showed, they had undertaken relevant and current training in recognising and reporting abuse. They showed a good understanding of safeguarding and were confident to report any concerns they may have to management and that they would be addressed and acted on promptly. Management had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding people. The registered manager gave examples of when they had acted and worked collaboratively with the local safeguarding team to protect people from harm. They explained the importance of working closely with commissioners, the local authority and relevant health and social care professionals on an on-going basis.

People were relaxed and comfortable with staff, each other and within their environment. The atmosphere within the service was welcoming and relaxed and staff had positive and caring relationships with the people they were supporting.

Management and staff had a good working knowledge of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the key requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They put these into practice effectively and ensured that people’s human and legal rights were respected. It was clear from support plan records that right strategies were used to support a person’s ability to decide for them self where possible. Where people did not have capacity to make decisions, where appropriate family were involved and where decisions needed to be taken in people’s best interests, for example wearing a lap strap in a wheelchair, legal process was followed, and appropriate professionals were involved.

People were empowered to take positive risks and were protected from harm in a reasonable way.

Managers and staff knew people well and understood how to meet their needs in a safe and supportive way. A rights-based approach was taken to risk management that considered potential harms and benefits on both sides of an issue, including emotional well-being. This meant people were protected from harm in a reasonable way whilst their independence, choice and well-being were promoted. Consistent staffing had helped develop trusting relationships with individuals and enabled staff to recognise early signs of distress and avoid stressful situations. One staff member told us, “I am aware of [person’s] communication methods and can predict their needs, this enables [person] to remain calm and relaxed. I am also aware that [person] likes alone time in their room watching TV and I ensure I respect that. I know that if [person] waves it means to leave the room.”

During the assessment we observed staff responding well to a person who was experiencing distress. They acted in a calm manner, giving reassurance, and providing distraction.

The service engaged in positive risk taking as opposed to avoiding risk which helped to ensure people had choice and remained as independent as possible. Staff were guided about risks to people’s health and welfare from personalised risk assessments and risk management plans. However not all were as detailed as they could be to help staff deliver tailored and consistent support to people who communicated distress through behaviour. Whilst risk assessments were reviewed, they did not show that risks to people’s health and welfare were regularly re-assessed and revised regularly.

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

People were supported by enough skilled and competent staff who were recruited safely and were sufficiently supported. Relatives told us staff were consistent and familiar with their family members which was good for their wellbeing. One relative told us, “Yes, there are enough staff, they are good. It’s more consistent now and I recognise staff.”

The registered manager told us staffing had improved and more permanent staff had been recruited. When agency staff were needed the same staff were given for consistency and familiarity with people. Staff spoke positively about the staffing levels within the home and told us there were enough staff to provide a safe and effective service. One staff member told us, “If not, there are always agency staff around to help us and work with us. We become a big team because we work together. There is always enough staff. Agency staff are always the same staff, this helps the residents as they build a relationship of trust and know the people, their routines and everything – it helps a lot. There are enough for one-to-one support, today we were planning to go out, but the weather was bad, so we do activities at home and play board games. There is always time and staff available.” A staff member from an agency told us, “Being agency can be quite hard, but here I don’t see myself as agency we are all treated the same. If I need anything I can go to managers and feel really supported in my role.” Staff told us that they completed a range of training that ensured they were able to meet people’s needs effectively.

At the time of our site visit staff were deployed efficiently across the units to support people safely and effectively.

Staff rotas showed enough staff were deployed to provide flexibility and meet people’s one to one support needs. Robust and safe recruitment practices were carried out to make sure all staff, including agency staff were suitable, competent, and able to carry out the role. Staff received regular formalised support and poor performance was managed appropriately.

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.