Gittisham Hill 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

People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood their duty to maintain people's safety and report any concerns. The manager and senior management team were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities. They ensured any concerns were reported to the local authority and the Care Quality Commission (CQC). This enabled external organisations to monitor safeguarding referrals. People’s rights were protected. We were assured the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were applied in practice. Staff were aware of people’s communication needs and sought their consent before any care or support was provided. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications had been made to the relevant local authority where required. This ensured no undue restrictions were placed on people at the service. Risks were assessed and mitigated, and people were cared for by staff who knew them well. Care records identified daily living risks in relation to matters such as falls, nutrition, behaviour and skin integrity. Where external professionals had identified areas for improvement or made suggestions or recommendations to improve the safety and quality of care, the provider and registered manager responded positively. Practices were in place to ensure the safety of the premises and equipment. There were enough staff deployed to safely meet people's needs. Staff were recruited safely and undertook a wide range of training courses to equip them with the knowledge needed to carry out their roles. Staff received an induction and training when they started their employment and described how this prepared them to work safely in their role.

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 said they felt safe at the service and were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them well. One person told us, “It is wonderful here, it really is”. Relatives shared this view and said any queries had been responded to quickly and they were kept up date about their loved by the current home manager. Comments included, “Staff are really good. Nothing is too much trouble” and “I see nothing but caring and kindness, not only to the residents but to visitors too”.

Leaders understood their responsibilities to keep people safe. Staff understood their duty under safeguarding and confirmed they had received appropriate training. Staff felt people using the service were safe from the risk of abuse.

Staff approached and spoke to people in a kind and considerate way and people appeared relaxed and comfortable around staff.

Safeguarding policy and processes were in place and ensured safeguards were made to the local authority as necessary. Records showed staff had completed safeguarding training.

Risks to people were managed to ensure they were safe but without restricting their freedom, choice and control. Staff supported people with their individual needs. People told us they felt safe at the service and trusted the staff. One person said, “I was very poorly when I came here…but moved here and soon recovered and thrived. The care here saved me”.

Staff kept people safe by regularly reviewing and updating people's risk assessments and care plans as their needs changed. Care plans were designed to guide staff practice, to ensure people’s needs and preferences were understood and met.

Through our observations, it was clear people were supported by staff who understood their individual risks and took the necessary action to keep them safe. For example, we observed staff helping people to mobilise and observed staff assisting with moving a person using a hoist. We found this was carried out safely.

Care plans were in place which staff understood and followed. The provider assessed risks to ensure people were safe and took action to mitigate any identified risks. Staff liaised with relevant external professionals to ensure changes in people’s needs, such as physical and mental health, were reviewed and supported appropriately.

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 spoke highly of the approach and attitude of staff, and we observed people knew and trusted them. Comments included, “They are all very nice. Always there for me when I need them, very helpful” and, “I like them all (staff). They are very nice. I really can’t grumble when they look after me so well.”

Staff were happy in their roles and felt well supported. They told us they received appropriate training and supervision. Overall, they felt staffing levels were sufficient to be able to deliver safe care and support. The provider used a dependency tool to determine staffing levels.

Staff were visible during the inspection. They spent time with people engaging in conversation, as well as providing care and support. Staff were not rushed and had time to sit with people and engage with them in a meaningful way.

People were cared for by staff who had been recruited safely. Records confirmed staff received regular supervision and an annual appraisal to help them develop within their role. A staff training matrix confirmed staff received training appropriate to their roles.

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.