Castlehill Specialist Care Centre

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

Our rating for this key question remains good. People felt safe. The provider had clear processes in place to support people moving both in and out of the home. Staff and leaders understood people’s risks and managed them effectively. The scores for this area have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection.

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.

Relative’s feedback about people’s transition into the home was positive. One relative described it as a smooth experience. Other relatives described feeling supported with their family member’s move into the home. Relatives also spoke positively about their family member’s move within the home. One person had moved from a unit that no longer met their needs and relatives described the person as being more content since the move.

Staff told us where people arrived at the home, they were given pre assessments which identified information about people’s immediate needs. Staff handover meetings were then used to share any additional information to ensure staff were fully aware of people’s needs. The registered and deputy managers told us there was a system in place to manage people’s transitions both in and out of the service. The deputy manager worked alongside funding authorities and family members to ensure staff had the information required to support people safely.

The registered manager shared with us the outcome of a review of one person’s experience on admission into the home carried out by an external agency. Although a full care plan had not been implemented in accordance with the home’s usual practices, they found the person’s needs were being met, and care delivery was recorded. A visiting healthcare professional told us staff worked alongside them to meet the needs of people who were on a Discharge to Assess pathway. While acknowledging there were some challenges within the system, feedback about how the staff managed this was positive.

There was a system in place to ensure people’s needs were assessed prior to admission and reviewed within a short time frame once they had moved into the home. Tasks to ensure people’s care was planned and met their needs were assigned to individual staff members and the management team maintained oversight of this. They ensured any actions not undertaken were followed up and completed within 4 days of admission.

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

Relatives told us they were confident staff managed people’s risks well. They shared with us action staff had taken in response to incidents and how these actions had meant there had been no further incidents or concerns.

Staff shared with us examples of how they managed people’s risks. This included areas such as mobility, skin integrity, distressed behaviours, and dietary needs. Staff were aware of any recent changes to people’s planned care. They told us they were kept informed of any new concerns or changes in people’s health needs through daily handover meetings. The deputy manager told us they managed the risks of people who were transitioning in and out of the service by working in partnership with external agencies, such as social workers and health care professionals. They explained information was shared with staff responsible for leading each unit, who ensured changes to people’s care were shared with staff who supported them.

We observed staff following people’s risk assessments throughout the day. This included responding to people’s distress to avoid escalation, supporting people with mobility to reduce the risk of falls and supporting with repositioning to reduce the risk of skin damage.

There was an assessment process in place which aimed to capture people’s needs and risks and assess if their needs could be met. Care plans reflected risks to people’s health and wellbeing and included guidance for staff on how to manage those risks. Regular reviews took place to ensure staff provided up to date, safe care that met people’s needs.

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

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

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.