Blackwell 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

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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 proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Accidents and incidents were reported, reviewed and analysed for themes and trends. Lessons were learned to continually identify and embed good practice. Relatives were satisfied with how accidents and incidents were managed. One told us their loved one had been involved in 2 incidents, however said “Despite these incidents, my confidence in the safety of services at the home is not undermined because they handled the situations well. The nurses did not try to hide their mistakes, and all appropriate actions were taken.”

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 were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns. Safeguarding procedures and relevant information to support people to report concerns were visible around the service. All relatives reported very strong confidence in the safety care provided by the service. One told us, “I have no concerns whatsoever about [relatives] safety and wellbeing at Blackwell.”

Risks to people were robustly assessed and staff knew people’s needs well. This included clinical risks such as those related to the management of diabetes, epilepsy or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) care. Care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed and people and relatives confirmed their involvement in the review process. Where people communicated their needs, emotions or distress, staff used a nationally recognised person-centred approach to safely manage these needs. One staff told us, “I feel that each of us have received that training in terms of us being able to reassure residents who are distressed or emotional.” Staff were observed to provide care to people in line with their care plans, such as support at mealtimes.

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

There were enough suitably qualified and experienced staff. Our observations and staff rota’s showed staffing levels were in line with the assessed needs of the service. People’s requests for support were quickly met, staff supervised communal spaces and took time to meet people’s emotional needs. Staff were up to date on their mandatory training. Staff told us, “We have come a long way since the last inspection. The staffing levels have improved, and people are more understanding of the needs of the residents.” Relatives also confirmed, “Carer response times when [relative] needs the toilet are particularly good.” And “The carers are responsive whatever the time of day.” Staff were recruited safely.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection well. The service was clean and well-maintained by staff who were suitably trained in infection prevention and control. Relatives told us, “The building is impressively clean and well-maintained.” And “Cleaning standards are meticulous.”

Medicines were safely managed, and people received their medicines as prescribed by competent staff. Systems to report, investigate and analyse medicine errors were effective and evidenced a reduction in medicine errors since our last assessment. Medicines were stored and disposed of safely. People’s preferences for the level of support they wanted in relation to medicines was clearly documented, for example where they wished to self-administer appropriate risk assessments were in place.