Puttenhoe

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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

People told us they felt safe when staff supported them with their care and support. They had individualised risk assessments in place to enable them to maintain their independence and keep them safe. There were sufficient numbers of staff who were safely recruited to meet people's needs.

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.

Safe systems were in place to ensure people lived in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. People felt safe when staff provided them with care and support. One person said, " What makes me feel safe is the people who are working here who are very caring. They only have caring people here and they are just like my friends, and I love them all.” Another person said, “It is a very safe place thanks to the carers; they are coming and checking all the time even when we don’t call them.”

Discussions with staff demonstrated they were skilled at recognising when people were at risk of harm or felt unsafe, and they felt comfortable to report unsafe practice. One staff member said, "I would report anything I wasn't happy about, without any hesitation." All staff we spoke with confirmed they had completed safeguarding training and understood the providers whistleblowing and safeguarding policies and procedures.

During the visit we saw kind and respectful interactions between people and staff. Staff were seen to offer people choices and seek consent before supporting them. They were mindful of keeping people safe and we saw that when staff moved people it was done with sensitivity and patience.

The service had policies and procedures which covered how to safeguard vulnerable people and children from potential harm and how to ‘whistle blow’ if necessary. We saw safeguarding training was considered essential by the registered provider and all staff completed this and regular refresher courses. The management team maintained a safeguarding log, to ensure they had effective managerial oversight of any safeguarding concerns. Records showed the provider reported safeguarding incidents as required to the relevant agencies and used these to learn lessons when things went wrong.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People had detailed risk assessments in place which guided staff on how to keep people safe. For example, if people were at risk of falls, a detailed risk management plan was put in place to reduce the likelihood of any falls. One person told us they felt safe because since moving into the home they had not had a fall. They said, “I am safe here, we are all safe, staff are always around. I have had no accidents since I came here. I know I need to use this machine [walking aid].”

Staff recognised risks to people and were consistent in their knowledge as to how they supported people to mitigate risk in the least restrictive way. Staff told us that the risk assessments accurately reflected people's needs, and the way they should be supported. A staff member said, “The risk assessments are very good guides to help us keep people safe.”

People were supported to do the things they wanted to do, and staff helped them to do this safely. We saw staff supporting people safely around the home or with their everyday activities. We also observed staff supporting people to move using hoists which was carried out safely and in line wit their moving and handling risk assessment's.

People’s care plans and risk assessments were personalised to them. Details held within peoples records demonstrated a good understanding of the person’s needs and how to meet these safely. Risk assessments were reviewed and updated swiftly if there were any changes or incidents. For example if a person had a fall their risk assessments and care plans would be reviewed and updated if required. Incidents and accidents were reported to the management team in a timely way, so that prompt reviews of their care could be taken. In addition to this, regular reviews were also completed to ensure care plans and risk assessments remained relevant and up to date.

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

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. There were sufficient staff to keep people safe. One person said, "I don’t think more staff is needed, I have this bell, but they come even if I don’t call.” A relative commented, “I can’t say they need more staff, but we are impressed they have [language] speaking staff, two of them and my relative likes them very much.”

Overall staff said that staffing levels were sufficient but on days where people had health appointments it could be very busy. One staff member said, “Staffing isn’t an issue. We have lots of staff to support people safely.” Another said, “Some days it would be nice to have an extra person on duty when there is a lot going on. It can get hectic at times.”

On the day of our site visit we observed sufficient staff to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. We saw the deployment of staff throughout the day was organised and people who required support with their personal care needs received this in a timely and sensitive way. We found staff had time to spend with people on an individual basis.

The provider followed robust recruitment procedures to ensure people were protected from staff that may not be fit to support them. Disclosure and barring service (DBS) security checks and references were obtained before new staff started their probationary period. These checks help employers to make safer recruitment decisions and prevent unsuitable staff being employed.

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.