Badminton Place

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 living at the service and staff were confident about what actions they should take if they were concerned about a person. Staff knew people well and understood the risks they might face. Care plans provided guidance to staff about how best to support people safely. When gaps were found in care records, these were updated promptly.

There was a culture of openness and learning to keep people safe. Incidents and accidents were investigated, although we found some had not been recorded. This was addressed by the management team.

At the time of our assessment, there were enough staff to safely support people, and they received training and supervision to ensure they were competent and skilled in their roles. Concerns had been raised about staffing and performance in the earlier part of the year, but we were assured that poor performance was managed appropriately, and the management team had made significant changes to improve the service and people’s experience.

People’s health and wellbeing needs were met effectively. Other professionals supported staff to ensure people received the support they needed. The environment was very pleasant, clean and well maintained.

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.

The service had a culture of safety which was based on openness and learning. However, we found staff or managers had not recorded some incidents. This meant learning could not always take place or changes made to improve care. The management team responded to our feedback and made changes to improve incident recording.

During this assessment, concerns were raised regarding the safe use of moving and handling equipment. This was highlighted to the management team, who provided assurance about the policy, practice and actions taken to ensure people and staff were safe.

The management team listened to concerns about safety and investigated incidents and events which were reported. Incidents, accidents and concerns were shared during handovers and daily meetings to ensure lessons were learned and improvements made when needed. People, relatives and staff felt they could raise concerns with the management team.

People’s health and wellbeing needs were met effectively. Staff worked with people and other agencies to establish and provide effective care in which safety was monitored and well managed. People told us they had regular appointments with GP and nurses, and there were contracts with physiotherapy, chiropody and complementary therapies to ensure these were consistently provided at the service. A local dental surgery was due to start providing regular clinics at the service. This recognised and addressed the difficulties that people experienced to register with a local dentist. The professionals we spoke with were complimentary about how staff worked with them to ensure people were safe and received the support they needed.

People's needs were assessed before they moved to Badminton Place and in line with recognised best practice. Before a person moved to the home, a comprehensive assessment of their care and support needs was completed. This was to ensure people’s needs could be met safely and effectively. From the assessment, staff implemented a holistic care plan. The management team told us assessments had not always been so thorough, but they had recently reviewed this process.

People told us they felt safe living at the service. During our visit, we saw positive interactions and people appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff. One person told us, “Staff are understanding, kind and helpful and happy. They ask my consent, and I have choices.”

Staff and managers told us they aimed to ensure people had a good quality of life and could live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm or neglect. Staff received safeguarding training, and they told us what they would do if they were concerned about a person living at the service. The manager was aware of their responsibility to liaise with the local authority if safeguarding concerns were raised.

Staff we spoke with did not have concerns about the care and support people were currently receiving. One staff member said, “I have no worries about safeguarding, people are definitely safe here.”

People’s mental capacity had been assessed and decisions made in the individual’s best interests were documented. When people were subject to restrictions to keep them safe, these were monitored to ensure they remained necessary and proportionate.

Staff communicated with people or their relatives to explore, understand and manage the risks which were faced by individuals. For example, relating to mobility, communication, nutrition and personal care needs. These were documented and risk assessments and care plans gave staff guidance about how best to provide care which met individual needs and supported people to do what mattered to them safely.

Staff knew people well and understood the risks they faced. The management team had a good oversight of risks and the actions being taken to reduce these. There was whole home approach to managing risk with daily meetings to discuss areas of concern or changes.

However, we found 1 instance where a person’s risk assessment did not provide sufficient guidance about how best to safely support them. This could put the person or others at risk. We highlighted this to the management team, who took action to review the individual’s needs, records and incidents which had taken place.

Badminton Place provided an exceptionally homely environment for people. Each floor had lounge areas which were decorated and furnished to an extremely high standard. Corridors were wide and well lit. People were encouraged to personalise their bedrooms with furniture, photos and pictures. All bedrooms had ensuite facilities with motion sensor lighting which can help to reduce falls. Some bedrooms had access to the garden on the ground floor, and a balcony on the first floor. Communal facilities included a gym, hair salon, spa room, barber, cinema, bar bistro and fine dining room. The bistro bar was staffed throughout the day, offering hot, cold and alcoholic beverages to people and visitors. People could access secure outside spaces, and these had comfortable seating.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the environment, its condition and cleanliness. A team of housekeeping staff ensured all areas of the home were cleaned to a high standard. The home was clean and free from clutter and odours.

Maintenance staff ensured the building was safe and kept in a good state of repair. The delivery of safe care was supported by regular checks of equipment and building safety which the team carried out to detect and control potential risks in the environment.

Staff received training to keep people safe, such as fire safety, moving and handling and the use of different types of equipment. The service had records and care plans to help staff to deliver safe and effective care that met people’s needs.

Before our assessment, concerns had been raised with CQC about staffing levels and the skills, competency and conduct of some staff. We reviewed each of these concerns with the management team before and during our assessment. We were assured that leaders managed poor performance, and had made significant changes to the support, supervision and development staff received. Staff told us they felt the changes had been positive. One staff member said, “There was quite a lot of nastiness and staff refusing to work with each other. The manager has addressed this. She has spoken with staff, and they have moved on or re-evaluated themselves. It’s getting better.”

People and their relatives spoke positively about staff. One person said, ”The staff are incredible. Amazing.” However, a relative felt, “Some staff are better than others.” Relatives observed there had been many staffing changes recently, and they hoped this would be more stable now.

There was a calm atmosphere on each floor, and staff responded to people’s needs in a timely manner. Staff from all departments took time to speak with people and we observed many positive interactions during our visit.

Staff told us they received an induction when they started working at the service and ongoing training. This was supported by evidence we saw. Training compliance had declined in the earlier part of the year, but records showed significant improvements more recently. Staff now received relevant training to ensure their knowledge and skills remained up to date.

The provider employed enough staff to safely support people. There was now some over-recruitment, a reduction in agency staff and several new staff. New staff shadowed more experienced colleagues as part of their induction and were given time to gain the confidence and skills to safely support people living in the home. Recruitment processes were robust, and relevant checks were carried out before new staff started working at the service.

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.