Pippins Residential Care Home

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

The key question of Safe was rated good at our last inspection and continues to be rated good following this assessment. Staff knew people well and supported them to maintain their independence. People told us they felt safe, and one person commented they felt like it was one big family. People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse. Care plans were clear and provided appropriate guidance to staff on how to keep people safe. There were sufficient numbers of well-trained staff to support people to meet their needs. We identified some concerns around safe medicines administration which we raised with the service during our onsite assessment. The registered manager contacted us the next day and provided us with their detailed action plan and assurance that the concern was being managed and mitigated.

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 living at the service and expressed they would be happy to raise any concerns with staff.

Staff knew how to keep people safe. Staff informed us they would raise concerns with the appropriate person if needed, such as the registered manager and provider.

We observed the service had a relaxed and friendly atmosphere. People were relaxed with staff and were comfortable to ask staff for support.

There were systems in place to report safeguarding concerns to the local authority. The Provider had reported concerns when needed. When people were at risk of being deprived of their liberty to protect them from harm, the registered manager had applied for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations. These were kept under review and submitted as required.

People told us they were involved in managing risks. One person told us “It is wonderful, everyone is like a family here, there is no discouragement to do things that you want to do.” Another person told us about an incident where they had fallen. The service supported the person to move rooms to ensure staff could provide closer monitoring to keep them safe.

Staff knew people well and told us they could find information on people’s care and support needs in the service’s digital care plans and risk assessment system.

We observed staff being involved in managing risks to reduce the risk of harm to people. We saw staff supporting people to move around the service safely using their mobility aids. One person was using a wheelchair. The staff followed safety measures such as ensuring foot plates were in place and explained these to the person to minimise the risk of harm. People had suitable equipment in place to support safe transfer.

People’s care plans contained detailed guidance for staff to refer to. For example, what staff needed to do to manage potential risks to people’s health and welfare such as risks to skin and falls. People’s care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed and adapted to meet the person’s needs. However, people told us they were not aware of their care plans or contents, people did say staff knew them well and provided them with care and support that met their needs.

People we spoke with, told us they felt the service was well maintained and they were free to decorate their rooms how they wished. People’s rooms were tidy and had been personalised in accordance with the person’s wishes. One person told us they had a book case in their bedroom and staff helped them to organise their books as they wanted them.

Staff told us the provider would supply additional equipment if a person’s needs had changed or if there was a fault with the equipment and it needed to be replaced.

We observed the service was well maintained and records demonstrated that maintenance checks were completed in a timely manner. Fire safety, Legionella and equipment checks were regularly conducted.

The service had an emergency contingency plan in place with comprehensive and detailed information to guide staff in case of an emergency.

People told us they always received support when they needed and did not have to wait long. Comments included, “Staff spend enough time with me, when doing tasks I need, I do not feel things are rushed” and “Staff are wonderful.”

Staff told us they were well supported by the management team and felt confident to raise any concerns. Staff confirmed they had received up to date training and supervision regularly. However records showed some supervisions and appraisals were out of date. The registered manager had identified this and was working with the management team to conduct out of date supervisions.

We observed sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff were available to meet people’s needs. On the day of our onsite assessment we observed a member of staff was allocated to support people with activities and another member of staff supported one person to go out and access the community safely.

The service had a dependency tool in place to help them identify appropriate staffing levels. Staff were recruited safely and staff received appropriate training and records confirmed this.

People told us there were no restrictions on receiving visitors and we observed visitors coming and going freely. People told us they felt the sevice was clean and tidy. One person told us, “Staff are like butterflies, they come into my room and make it nice and tidy.”

Staff told us they had sufficient equipment and PPE to provide safe care.

We observed staff were using PPE (person protective equipment) effectively and safely. We observed the service appeared clean and smelt fresh. People’s rooms were clean and tidy. There were handwashing posters around the service in line with national guidance.

The provider had systems and processes in place to assess and manage the risk of infection. The service had up to date cleaning schedules in place. Infection control audits were regularly completed, and action was taken where issues were found.

People told us they received their medicines as prescribed. People commented that medicine was always made available, and staff did not forget to give them their medicines.

Staff told us they received updates from medicines audits identifying where improvements needed to be made. Staff also told us they received medicines training and records confirmed this.

The service had policies and procedures in place to manage people’s medicines and audits were being completed, however whilst the service had identified issues, we found some of these areas still needed further improvement. For example, medicines charts were not always completed correctly and staff were not always following the services’ policies and procedures for receiving and returning medicines. We discussed our concerns with the registered manager and provider who provided us with an action plan the following day. The action plan provided assurance these concerns had been mitigated and further measures had been put in place, including provider oversight.