Prospect House

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 were protected from the risk of abuse. Some staff required training about how to safeguard people. However, staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about how to identify and report potential safeguarding concerns. Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns with the registered manager. People told us they felt safe living at the service. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Risks posed to people were assessed, risk assessments and care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. However, we found staff did not always mitigate some risks. This was brought to the attention of the registered manager during the inspection and action taken to maintain people’s safety. People were supported by enough staff and staff were recruited safely. Some training was required for staff, the registered manager had recognised this shortfall and had various training dates planned for the near future. Medicines were safely managed and people received their medicines as prescribed.

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 observed people being supported in a kind and caring way, staff were respectful and promoted people's dignity. Staff worked in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Consent was sought from people, including consent for photographs, managing finances and receiving care.

Most care staff had received safeguarding training. However, domestic staff had not undertaken training, meaning not all staff in the service were provided with enough information about how to keep people safe from the risk of abuse. The registered manager had recognised this and training dates were booked for the near future. Systems were in place to record and take appropriate action to address incidents and reduce risks to people. External agencies were made aware of notifiable incidents. Where required, people's capacity was assessed and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding authorisations sought.

Staff told us people were safe. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about how to identify and report potential safeguarding concerns. Staff felt able to raise concerns with the manager and that appropriate action would be taken. Comments included, "I would report things straightway if needed. The manager would take action" and, "I would definitely whistleblow if I had to. I feel confident to. The manager would listen."

People told us they felt safe living at the service. People and relatives told us staff treated them with dignity and respect. One person said, "I feel so safe here" and another said, "I am so much safer here than I was at home." A relative said, "I have no concerns but if I did, I would speak to staff and they would deal with anything that was worrying me.”

We found staff did not always mitigate some environmental risks. For example, we found some fire doors wedged open and one person without a bed rail bumper in place. This was brought to the attention of the registered manager and immediately rectified, with increased checks added to daily walk rounds to monitor these concerns. Where people required assistance with moving and handling, we observed staff doing so safely and whilst treating people with respect.

People told us staff kept them safe and responded to their needs. We received positive feedback from relatives, who told us their loved ones were safely supported at the service.

Staff were knowledgeable about people's needs and told us people were safely cared for. People received regular observational checks, to ensure they were safe throughout the night.

Risks posed to people were assessed, risk assessments and care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. Records evidenced people received safe support in relation to pressure care and nutritional intake. Accidents and incidents were monitored by the management team, with lessons learned, to reduce risks posed to people. For example, one person was referred to the falls team following 2 incidents of falling. Lessons learned were shared with the staff team via meetings and newsletters. Environmental safety checks were carried out to ensure the environment and equipment was safe for use.

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

People were supported by enough staff, however some relatives and people told us staff were sometimes rushed. Comments included, "I feel safe and think there is enough staff about. I do think sometimes they are busy " and, "There is always staff about." A relative said, "We are very happy with the care, they could do with more staff at times when it is busy."

Some improvements were needed in regards to staff training. Records showed some staff were behind with mandatory refresher training and further training was required in relation to falls, positive behaviour support and catheter care. The registered manager had recognised this and had implemented various training courses and face to face training which was booked for the near future. Dependency tools were used to calculate staff required and rota's showed enough staff were provided to meet people's needs. The service had a core staff team. Agency staff were used to cover shortfalls and inductions were in place for them, to ensure agency staff were provided with information when attending the service. Staff were recruited safely and all appropriate pre employment pre employment checks were in place.

People were supported by enough staff, so people received safe and consistent care.

Staff told us there were safe staffing levels at the service. Staff felt well supported in their roles and received regular supervisions and appraisals. Staff told us the morale within the team was good. One staff member said, "There is enough staff. I can raise concerns, we don't have to wait until the managers on premises, they are always available for us, it is a good 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 told us they received their medicines on time and had their medicines reviewed. People received their medicines as prescribed. A relative said, "“(Relative) has been more alert since they had a medicine review. The review was done with me and I am happy with how it is all going.”

Staff told us medicines were safely managed and they had training and competency assessments prior to administering medicines to people. One staff said, "I have had my medicines training, we have moved pharmacies and we have also had training with them."

Medicines were safely stored, administered and disposed of, and accurate records kept. Systems were in place to monitor and audit medicines to ensure they were safely administered. Where errors occurred these were appropriately investigated and action taken to learn lessons from these. Where people required prescribed patches, this was monitored and recorded to ensure people received these safely. PRN protocols were in place to guide staff about how and when to administer pain relief.