The Dene Lodge - Minehead

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 received safe care which respected their rights.

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 lived in a home where the management took action to make sure there were ongoing improvements to the care and support people received. For example, the provider had identified a high number of falls had occurred. In response to this they had arranged for outside professionals to support people with gentle exercise to promote mobility and balance.

Staff used learning to constantly improve practice. Staff were aware of up-to-date risk assessments which helped to make sure people received care with minimum risk.

There were processes in place to analyse all accidents and incidents at the home. Following analysis, action was taken to minimise the risks of re-occurrence.

People had their needs assessed before they moved into the home. This helped to make sure the service was able to meet their needs and expectations. A relative told us they and their relative had been totally involved in the assessment process.

The management told us that all new residents were seen by the complex care GP when they first moved to the home. This ensured healthcare needs were identified and met.

A visiting professional told us the staff worked well with them to make sure people had access to appropriate professionals when they moved in. This helped to make sure there was no gap in ongoing treatment people were receiving.

The management team carried out pre-admission assessments and these were used to inform the initial care plan for people.

People were supported by staff who were kind and respectful. People and visiting relatives were complimentary about the staff. One relative said, “The staff are a delight. I have never witnessed anything bad.”

Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to report any concerns. One member of staff said, “I would have no qualms about going to a manager if I had any worries. They would look into it and give feedback, so you know something is done.”

People looked comfortable and relaxed with staff who supported them. Throughout our visits we saw kind and caring interactions.

Safeguarding referrals were made to the local authority where concerns were identified. Records were kept of all referrals made. The provider made applications for people to be legally deprived of their liberty where they needed this level of protection to keep them safe.

Possible risks to people were assessed. Where risks were identified, action was taken to minimise these in the least restrictive way.

Staff were able to tell us about individual risks and the action they took to support people to receive care safely.

During the site visits we saw staff supporting people in accordance with their risk assessments. For example, where someone was assessed as being at high risk of falls, staff supported them to move around safely.

People’s individual care plans contained risk assessments. These helped to make sure people had the equipment and support needed to maintain their independence with minimum risk to themselves or others.

People lived in an environment which was well maintained. No one raised any concerns with us about the safety of the building.

The provider had systems in place to make sure the building was safe. All equipment was regularly tested in house and by outside contractors. Staff told us they had access to the equipment they needed to safely support people.

All areas of the home appeared safe and free from hazards. However, we noticed that garden areas were not all well maintained meaning they may not be safely accessible to people with poor mobility or wheelchair users.

The provider kept records of all safety checks and had contracts with appropriate providers to make sure equipment was regularly serviced.

People received care from staff who received training and had their competency assessed. One person told us, “Staff are nice, very helpful.” A visitor told us, “Staff are brilliant here, we are very impressed.”

Staff told us there had been improvements to staffing levels since the last inspection. One member of staff told us, “Staffing is much better. We aren’t short staffed, and we have more time to spend with people.”

During our site visit we saw people had access to staff when they needed them. In addition to care staff, activity staff were employed to support people with social stimulation.

The provider had processes in place to make sure staff were safely recruited. There was an ongoing training programme which helped to make sure staff had the skills and knowledge needed to safely support people.

People lived in a home which was clean and odour free. One visitor described the home as “Scrupulously clean.”

There was a dedicated housekeeping team who took pride in their work. They told us they had all the materials and equipment they needed, including personal protective equipment.

We saw that all areas of the home were clean and fresh. We noted staff had access to personal protective equipment and used it when appropriate.

The provider had cleaning schedules in place to make sure all areas were kept hygienically clean. Audits were carried out to make sure high standards of cleanliness were maintained.

People received their medicines safely from staff who had received appropriate training to carry out the task. Where people needed medicines to be administered at specific times, we saw they received them at the correct time.

Managers at the home had a good oversight of medicines stocks and administration. Staff said they received training in the safe administration of medicines and had their competency assessed by more senior staff.

The staff used an electronic system to administer medicines. Records seen were well maintained. There was a system in place to ensure medicines were stored at the correct temperature. However, we saw that when the medicines fridge was recorded as being outside of safe temperature range no action had been taken to promptly rectify this. This could result in medicines being stored at the wrong temperature which may affect their effectiveness.