Seacroft Court Nursing Home

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 lived in a safe environment. Risks to their safety and well-being were assessed and measures were in place to reduce them. Staff safeguarded people from abuse and there were effective processes for reporting and managing safeguarding incidents. There were enough, well-trained staff to support people and medicines were managed safely. The provider and registered manager promoted a learning culture within the service to ensure people had a positive experience of living there.

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 were unable to explain how the learning culture affected their experience in the service. However, due to effective processes and good staff knowledge, we assessed that people had a positive experience. Relatives were positive about the learning culture. One relative said, “I think their [staff] knowledge is really good and they have had more training.”

The registered manager and staff spoke positively about the importance placed on learning from events or incidents within the service. They told us about regular staff meetings where issues were discussed and what lessons could be learned. A staff member told us, “We've learnt from mistakes in the past and we are so much better for it.”

We saw evidence that the registered manager supported staff to embed lessons learned and best practice through team meetings and internal communication processes. Competency checks were completed which supported the embedding of good practices and upskilling of staff.

Relatives told us appropriate referrals were made so people had access to services such as podiatry, GP’s and dieticians whenever needed. One relative said, “Yes, they work well with other services, they email/voice calls etc. They get a response back from GP because of the effort they put in.”

Staff knew which external professionals supported which people and how to refer for specialist support services when needed. The registered manager spoke about the assessments they carried out when people were admitted to the service. This meant, for example, they could ensure there were the right levels of staff to meet a person’s needs and any specialist equipment required was available when they moved in.

Partners had no specific feedback in this area.

There were processes in place to ensure people could transition safely to and from different services. For example, ‘grab sheets’ were in place if a person needed to go to hospital which gave details of the person’s needs and how they were managed. This meant hospital staff had the information they needed to ensure continuity of care for the person. In addition, there were systems and processes in place, for example, to ensure a person’s needs were assessed prior to admission and referrals to external professionals were monitored and followed up where appropriate.

People and their relatives told us they felt the service protected them from the risk of abuse and kept them safe. One relative said, “I think [loved one] is very safe and I am very happy with [them being] there.”

Staff told us they received regular training about safeguarding people from abuse and demonstrated their understanding of the processes for reporting any concerns. They knew where the provider’s safeguarding policy was and how to access it. They also told us they had confidence that senior staff and the registered manager would act quickly to protect people if any safeguarding concerns were reported to them.

We saw people were supported appropriately by staff. Information was displayed around the home about how to report any safeguarding concerns people, staff or visitors may have.

Records showed staff received regular training about how to keep people safe from abuse. The registered manager had systems in place to ensure staff kept up to date with the required training. There were processes in place to ensure any suspected or actual abuse was reported in the right way.

Relatives were satisfied that staff understood and managed risks to their loved one’s health, safety and wellbeing. They also felt involved in managing risks. One relative said, “I do believe that they do understand, and I think that staff have had better training to support people properly. I am involved in any changes in [loved one’s] care plan, they will also consult me. [Loved one] is a high falls risk and they assess… No falls since the sensor mat has been in place.”

Staff were knowledgeable about the risks to people’s safety and well-being. They told us they had access to people’s risk assessments and care plans which were updated regularly, adding that any changes in people’s needs were communicated clearly to them. Staff said they received training about managing risks such as falls, pressure area care and nutrition.

We saw the actions identified in people’s care plans to manage risks were in place. For example, staff used hoists with correct slings to move people when needed. Specialist mattresses were in place where needed and staff followed specialist advice to help people eat and drink safely.

Systems were in place, and regularly monitored by the registered manager and provider, to ensure risks to people’s health, safety and welfare were consistently and effectively managed. Records showed people’s risk management plans were updated regularly and staff has received training in how to identify and manage risk. Where people were not able to recognise or make informed decisions about risks, the registered manager ensured legal processes were followed in order to protect them. Records showed where best interest decisions had been taken and where Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place. DoLS are a set of legal requirements which ensure that individuals are only deprived of their liberty in a necessary and proportionate way for their protection. DoLS authorisations were up to date, reviewed regularly and any conditions were adhered to by staff. Where relevant, equality and human rights legislation was also considered.

People and their relatives were satisfied with the safety and suitability of the service environment. One person told us about how they can get around the building without worrying about trips and falls because there is lots of space around furniture and staff keep the environment tidy. A relative said, “Very good, it [the building] is very well looked after. It is a very stimulating environment for them, [loved one] has a lovely room.”

The registered manager and staff told us the environment felt safe inside and outside of the service. They told us the provider was responsive when anything needed repair or replacement. They added that the provider was also supportive of plans to enhance the environment for the safety and comfort of people, for example, the registered manager told us about plans to enhance the safety of a terrace to the front of the building.

Since our last visit to the service there had been substantial improvements made to the environment. For example, we saw lounges and activity areas had been refurbished so people were able to use them safely and comfortably. Garden areas had been made safer for people walk around and enjoy.

The environment was kept safe by regular checks and maintenance which were monitored by the registered manager and the provider. Regular fire safety checks and evacuation tests were carried out. Fire wardens were allocated for each shift. The provider had a plan in place to ensure people were safely housed if the building became unusable because of damage.

People and their relatives told us there were enough, well-trained staff to meet everyone’s needs. One person said, “Staff know what they’re doing and know what we like.” Another person told us, “Staff are very nice and respectful; very caring and come quickly. [Senior carer] is a gem.” A relative said, “There always seem to be plenty staff, I don’t think there are any issues with it. There is always someone to help. We are very pleased.” Another relative told us, “I think their knowledge is really good and they have had more training, they have taken on people with more experience and the newer ones are getting training on the job. Young staff are more involved, there is an improvement.”

Staff told us there were always enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. One member of staff said, “[Staff levels have] improved massively. Shifts work well together. There’s a joined-up approach.” Staff also told us how staff levels were regularly reviewed in line with people’s dependency levels to make sure there were always the right numbers of staff on duty.

On the day of our visit, we saw there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. This included providing for personal care needs and social and well-being needs. Staff responded quickly to requests for support. Staff also demonstrated a clear knowledge and understanding of people’s needs by anticipating when extra support may be required to avoid a person experiencing any anxiety or distress.

Records showed staff had completed training which was relevant to their role, and which was regularly updated. Systems and processes were in place to ensure staff were safely recruited. This included Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. These checks provide information about previous convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer which enables the provider to ensure they employ fit and proper staff to support people.

People and their relatives were satisfied with the cleanliness and hygiene within the service. One person said, “It’s very clean here, the cleaners are very good.” A relative said, “Clean and well-maintained, this has improved. There is a vast improvement.” Another relative told us, “I would say that it is very clean, if I have had an issue then I can go and tell them, they are very responsive, definitely an improvement in cleanliness.”

Staff knew about infection prevention and control (IPC) principles including the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). They were able to describe how laundry was processed in line with good IPC practices and how to report and manage outbreaks.

We saw the service was clean, hygienic and odour free. Staff used appropriate hand washing techniques and wore PPE at appropriate times. Housekeeping staff were visible throughout our visit and responded quickly to any needs identified.

Processes were in place to monitor IPC practices. The registered manager carried out regular audits and walk arounds. Records showed staff had received training about IPC practice.

People and their relatives told us medicines were administered at the times they were prescribed and in the ways people preferred. A relative told us, “[Loved one] did not like taking her medications at one time but [now] they talk to her and support her kindly.” We saw staff took time to make sure people had medicines such as pain relief when they requested them and spoke with them about issues such as the site and severity of the pain before they administered.

Staff told us they had received training in the safe administration of medicines. They said they also received regular checks to make sure their skills and knowledge remained up to date. Where people could not express verbally if they needed, for example, pain relief, staff described how they used people’s body language, facial expressions and behaviour to determine their need. In addition, staff told us how they would support someone if they refused their medicines, including how they would escalate any concerns they had.

Processes were in place to ensure medicines were managed safely. Medicine administration was carried out in line with the provider’s policy and good practice guidance. Regular checks of medicines and the environment they were stored in were carried out, including medicines that required special storage and recording. Protocols were in place for administering medicines people took as and when needed (known as PRN).