St Michaels Nursing 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 home was safe and people felt safe at the home. Staff and the registered manager understood risk and how to reduce it while ensuring people retained choice and independence. There were sufficient, trained staff to keep people safe.

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.

We spoke to six people and two of their visitors during our visit. People were positive about safety at the home. One visitor told us “It’s marvellous, we have no concerns.” Another visitor said “Staff are very welcoming.” A person told us “[staff] calls in on me every morning to see I’m OK.”

Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to keep people safe. Staff said they supported people with psychological and emotional needs as well as physical. Staff explained how knowing people well meant they could keep them safe from harm; if for example a person was violent staff knew how to calm the person and the best place to help them to sit, and who to sit with. Staff also told us about the safeguarding training. The registered manager told us how Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were used to keep people safe.

We saw good rapport between staff and people at the home. It was evident that people were happy to speak freely to staff.

Staff had all completed safeguarding training within the last six months and the training matrix confirmed this. The home had a comprehensive safeguarding policy which included explanations of terms and some examples of possible abuse. The policy included information for staff on who and how to contact if they had any concerns about safe care. The home had a zero tolerance policy to any forms of abuse.

People were included in managing risk. People told us staff talked to them often and gave them choices in their care. One person said they spent a lot of time in bed as “My legs don’t work so it’s more comfortable in bed.” But they said staff visited them frequently to ensure they were safe and happy.

Staff told us they managed risk in the home and involved people when necessary. When there were fire drills people were informed about them so they did not worry. The registered manager said the people in the home had trust in the staff to keep them safe.

Risks to people were assessed on admission to the service and regularly updated. Risk assessments were completed. Where risks had been identified these had been assessed and actions were in place to mitigate them. Staff provided support in a way which minimised risk for people. Where people were at high risk of pressure damage, staff had access to appropriate nursing equipment to reduce the risk. For example, pressure relieving mattresses were in place. Where people were at risk of choking, we saw input from a speech and language therapist (SaLT). This included details of people’s required food and drink. This information was translated into people’s care plans and staff were aware.

We saw examples of risk assessments. People were assessed for the level of risk and there was guidance in the main care plan for staff in how to reduce any risk. Where people lacked capacity this was recorded and staff had advice on what things a person could decide on. There was information about evacuation in the event of a fire, including specific needs of each person, such as how much assistance they needed. Assessment plans had a template to ensure each risk was addressed.

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 had mixed feedback from people about staffing. While everyone complimented the staff on their positive attitudes and caring natures, some people said more available staff would improve reaction times. One person said “When you ring your bell you can wait ages.” However, most people and their visitors told us they were happy with the staffing numbers; they said peoples care needs were being met. Comments included, “They come in a chat to me all the time,” and, “Everyone is brilliant. They do a fantastic job.” “Staff are fantastic and really caring. I feel very safe.”

The registered manager told us there were enough staff to support people safely. They said there was low staff turnover so staff knew people well which ensured continuity of care. The registered manager said staff had all appropriate training to keep people safe. Training was a mixture of online and face to face.

Staffing levels were appropriate to meet people's needs and there were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff deployed to keep people safe. We saw staff supported people in a relaxed manner and spent time with them. During our visit we saw staff were available and responded quickly to people. People did not wait for long periods of time when they required assistance.

We looked at staff files. Staff were employed safely with necessary checks completed. Staff files were all up to date with no gaps in records. The registered manager carried out audits on the files and they were maintained by an administrator.

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.