Foxholes 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

People felt safe at the service. Staff knew how to recognise and report and any concerns about people’s safety and welfare. People’s care was given in accordance with individual risks. Staff were seen working safely.

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.

People and their relatives felt they were kept informed, and they were listened to, with any needed actions taken. A relative said, “I feel that the service is well run, I have been asked for my views. I am regularly informed on how [person] is and any changes in the care home.” People and relatives spoke positively of the open and listening approach of the management team. A person said, “[Registered manager] is helpful, comes if you want to see her. [Deputy manager] helped sort-out hearing aids, gives me peace of mind. I am encouraged to speak up.” A relative said, “It is extremely well managed, and they are always available to chat and have regular monthly meets to discuss what’s going on.”

Staff told us learning was shared through meetings and weekly updates. A staff member said, “They share information about an event or incident to make sure everyone learns from it or get informed.”

Learning was taken and shared with the staff team. This included sharing information from this assessment to hep ensure actions areas were addressed, and staff understood the reasons for the actions.

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. A person said, “I could speak up if I needed to. I feel quite happy, feel safe, I have no worries.” Relatives also felt their family members were safe living at the service. A relative said, “Staff are caring and considerate. Whenever I visit my [person], they are consistently great, and I leave knowing they are safe and well cared for.”

Staff knew how to recognise, and respond to, abuse. A staff member said, “I have never had to personally raise any concerns for safety or abuse and if I did I would firstly notify my team leader and if I was not happy that they had took me seriously I would approach the Home Manager or the owner, if I felt this was not being taken seriously I would contact yourselves.” Another staff member said, “I speak to the management and if nothing else has been done I will use the form of whistleblowing, escalation.”

We saw staff were kind, patient and caring in their approach. People were relaxed and comfortable with staff.

Safeguarding concerns were processed, reported and recorded appropriately. Staff received training and information was displayed around the home.

People told us they felt staff supported them safely. A person told us the previous day they had been injured while being supported to move. We raised this with the management team who explained what had happened and what action had been taken to prevent a reoccurrence.

Staff knew people’s individual risks and able to tell us how they reduced those risks. For example, in relation to falls, dietary needs and pressure care.

Staff were working safely. We saw staff supporting people to move around safely, respond to calls for assistance and carry out regular checks. Staff ensured people were sat up when eating and foods were the right consistency for their needs. There were sensor mats, low beds in place and call bells accessible to everyone. 2 people did not have bumpers in situ on the bedrails and there was insufficient reasoning or risk assessments in their care plan. We also found 2 people did not have their mattresses set to their weight. For 1 person their weight was recorded as 55.8kg but the mattress was set to 150kg. The second person was recorded as weighing 83.3kg but their mattress was set to 55kg. this meant the incorrect setting could impact on the mattress’s effectiveness. We raised these points with the management team who took immediate action to address these points and ensure equipment was used safely and appropriately.

People had individual risk assessments, and these gave guidance and regularly reviewed. Following our feedback there were updates to processes including risk assessing of bedrail bumpers and oversight of mattress settings.

People told us they felt safe and comfortable living at the service. They told us they enjoyed the facilities and could move around freely. A person said, “I’m happy here, looked after very well, there are no restrictions.” People had personalised their rooms and their space was respected by staff.

Staff were aware of hazards and how to reduce these. Most staff had attended fire drills and practiced evacuation in the event of an emergency. A staff member said, “I’ve had lots of training and support, even how to provide care. I have had a fire drill, we practiced evacuation (with equipment) in training. Managers always round checking, they speak to you as they go round.”

The environment was free from hazards and fire safety equipment was in place. People had access to call bells and the home was well maintained. However, we did find alcohol gel bottles free standing in corridors. This included in the unit which supported people living with dementia. We discussed this with the management team who advised it was a temporary measure while they were waiting for wall mounted dispensers to arrive. However, on reflection they decided to remove these bottles during the interim.

People said there were mostly enough staff to meet their needs. A person said, “Staff come pretty quickly if needed.” Relatives also said they felt there were enough staff, and staff were trained for their role. A relative said, “Care is very personalised. At weekends there are less staff around but always someone available and nurses and carers about if you need to chat or need support.”

Most staff felt there was normally enough staff available to meet people’s needs. A staff member said, “I find that we have enough staff. The busiest time is the morning, we take into consideration priority residents, the district nurse (visits) & residents wishes on when they would like to have their care. Care is not always 'on time' for when they wish, due to us having to priorities due to resident’s emergencies.” Another staff member said, “The management ensure that there is enough staff to deliver day to day activities to meet the needs of service users and prevent late or missed care. They all receive their care promptly.” Some staff told us that staff sickness at times impacted on the home. The registered manager and deputy manager advised they at times cover shifts to reduce this in short notice absences. Most staff felt they received enough training to carry out their role. A staff member said, “I feel that I do have enough training and support. We do a weekly focus which changes each week, with daily tasks to discuss as a team. This also refreshes our memory and gets the whole team working together. I have a regular supervision”

Staff were visible and prompt when people requested support. Call bells were answered swiftly and staff were happy to assist people.

We reviewed the training matrix and saw training was completed. There was also a record of regular supervision. The deputy manager had attended a trainer’s session with a local care providers association to ensure they had up to date skills to train staff within the home.

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.

People received their medicines in accordance with their needs and as the prescriber intended. Staff were carrying out administration tasks safely and in a timely manner. Staff responsible for managing medicines were aware of safe practice.

Systems were in place to help ensure safe management of medicines. We checked a random sample of quantities of medicines against records held and found these to be correct in most cases. One medicine did not have the quantity recorded accurately so there was a discrepancy in relation to how much was in stock and how much recorded as in stock. Also, a person’s patch had not been recorded on their body map to show staff where it was located. We shared this with the management team for following up who told us, “We have already had a meeting with them about this and their auditing practice.”