OSJCT Chilterns Court 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

Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to report any safeguarding concerns. The registered manager had systems in place to investigate and report concerns. Risk assessments and management plans were in place and reviewed regularly. There were systems and processes for staff to follow, and incidents and accidents were analysed.

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.

People told us they felt safe. Comments included, “Yes [safe], I feel that I am looked after living here”, “I certainly feel safe living here” and “I feel very safe living here. I say that because they [staff] are very kind and they look after me very well, so I have every reason to feel safe.” One relative commented, “Yes, I think that she [person] is safe.”

Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of safeguarding and their commitment to report concerns. Their comments included, “I’ve had safeguarding training, so I know to go to my manager if I have concerns, but I’ve never seen anything here”, “I would talk to my care leader or the manager. I can also whistle blow or talk to the safeguarding team” and “I would report to the care leader and my manager. I’d also call the Care Quality Commission (CQC). I’ve confidence in my managers to do the right thing.”

Systems were in place to record, report and investigate safeguarding concerns. People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were considered when keeping people safe. Records confirmed the registered manager worked with the local authority safeguarding team when dealing with safeguarding concerns.

People and their relatives were aware of the risks and action staff had taken to manage the risks. One relative said, “What I see each time I visit is how the staff treat her [person], and they have arranged to give her a fall mat.” One person at risk of dehydration told us, “I do get a lot to drink, they are very keen on that and I get a lot of drink.” A relative commented, “When they give her [person] milk shakes she gulps them down, raspberry and strawberry are her favourites. She certainly drinks enough as far as I am concerned.”

We asked staff about people’s risks and how effective was the risk assessment process. Staff comments included. “I think we manage risks well here. I use the assessments all the time”, “The risk assessments are definitely good, they guide me well. The guidance really helps” and “The [risk assessments] are useful.” Some staff spoke about how they protected people’s rights when keeping them safe. They said, “With managing risks, we need to consider residents [people’s] rights and opinions”, “When I am managing risks I still need residents [people’s] consent before supporting them” and “I need to consider the mental capacity act, it’s my job to seek consent in all actions.”

There was an effective risk management process in place. Following an assessment of people’s needs, risks were identified. Risk assessments were in place and provided staff with detailed guidance. Risks identified included hydration, diabetes, falls and tissue viability. Records confirmed risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated.

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.