Flowers Manor

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

We assessed all of the quality statements for the safe key question.

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 told us they were confident any concerns raised with the management team would result in improvements.

The provider had an effective system for tracking incidents and accidents in the service. Staff recorded details of all incidents, which were reviewed and investigated by the management team. The provider shared learning from incidents across the organisation.

Staff told us accidents and incidents were thoroughly investigated and action taken to learn lessons from them if needed. Staff said they were encouraged to raise any concerns about safety in the service and learning from incidents was shared with them.

Community health professionals reported the service worked well with them to ensure people received continuity of care.

People and their relatives told us they had received good support to move into the service. Some people said they had been able to try the service for a short stay before deciding whether to move in permanently. Staff had worked with other services to ensure people received continuity of care, for example, liaising with hospital staff, GPs, and community nurses.

People's records demonstrated assessments of their needs were completed before they moved to the service. Assessments included details of the range of community health and social care services the person used and arrangements to ensure the support was maintained.

The registered manager told us they completed assessments of people's needs in person wherever possible, including visiting them in hospital, at home or in other care services. This ensured they gained as much information about people's needs as possible, including feedback from other professionals involved in their care. Staff reported they worked with other services to ensure people received consistent care when moving into the service. Examples included working with GPs and the pharmacy to ensure people received their medicines as they needed.

We observed staff interacting with people in a relaxed and friendly way. People appeared comfortable in the presence of staff.

There were systems to help keep people safe. A safeguarding policy was available at the service which staff were aware of. Where appropriate staff had applied to the local authority for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations. The registered manager had a record of all DoLS applications that had been made. All staff had received safeguarding training, which was mandatory.

Staff told us they had completed safeguarding training. Staff were clear about how to report any alleged abuse and they were aware of the whistleblowing policy and process. Staff were confident the management team would take action if they reported concerns.

People told us they felt safe living at Flowers Manor. People and their relatives had access to information about how to raise any concerns they might have.

We observed staff following people’s risk management plans on most occasions throughout the assessment. On two occasions we saw staff not following people’s plans in relation to moving and handling. We raised this with the registered manager who took action to ensure staff had clear guidance and additional training.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding people’s risk management plans and the support they needed to stay safe. Staff said they felt risks were well managed in the service.

People told us they were involved in reviewing their risk management plans to help keep them safe. People told us staff followed these plans and said they felt safe.

People had risk assessments and risk management plans, which set out the support they needed to stay safe. The plans had been regularly reviewed with people and their relatives to ensure the measures in place were up to date.

People said they felt safe in the environment and had all the equipment they needed.

There were systems to check the environment and equipment in the service and action was taken to repair any defects identified. Checks included gas safety systems, water systems, fire equipment, lifting equipment and electrical systems.

We observed equipment in the home was in a good state of repair and had been regularly serviced. Staff locked equipment and chemicals away when not in use. The building was well maintained.

Staff reported there were systems to check the environment and equipment in the service. No concerns had been raised about the safety of the environment by staff. Staff said repairs were completed quickly when needed, either by the maintenance team or specialist contractors.

Required pre-employment checks had been completed for staff before starting work. This included a check with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). New staff received an induction which included training and shadowing experienced staff. Records demonstrated staff had regular supervisions and an annual appraisal. Staffing numbers were calculated dependent on people's needs and regularly reviewed. The registered manager had a record of training staff had completed and a system to plan when refresher courses were needed.

We observed there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and to respond to requests for assistance. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs.

Staff told us there were enough of them to support people safely, although some felt there were times they could be rushed, for example due to sickness absence. Staff said they had regular support meetings with their supervisor and an annual appraisal. Staff confirmed they had completed employment checks before they started work and told us they had completed training necessary for their role.

People told us there were enough staff available to provide the support they needed. People said staff had the right skills and knowledge to meet their needs.

Staff did not always follow the provider’s dress code in relation to jewelry, which could compromise infection control. We raised this with the registered manager who took action to remind all staff of the expectations. Other than the dress code, we observed staff following good infection prevention control procedures. Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) when needed and disposed of it safely. The home was clean and PPE was available for staff throughout the building.

The service had an infection prevention and control (IPC) policy in place and guidance for staff. IPC audits were completed regularly reviewed by the management team.

Staff told us they had clear information about infection prevention and control procedures in the service. They were aware of the infection control lead and said regular infection control audits were completed, with the outcome and actions shared with all staff. Staff confirmed they had completed infection control training.

People told us the home was kept clean and staff used personal protective equipment when needed, including when supporting them with personal care.

Staff told us the medicines systems worked well and people were supported to take any medicines they had been prescribed. Staff said the system for ordering medicines was completed in good time, to allow any errors to be resolved before people needed the medicine. Staff said they had received training in medicines administration and had regular competency assessments.

People told us they received good support to take their medicines. People were supported to take their medicines at the right time and said staff helped them to apply medicated creams when needed. People said they were able to see their GP when they needed to review their medicines.

People were supported to safely take their prescribed medicines. Medicines administration records had been fully completed. These gave details of the medicines people had been supported to take and an accurate record of medicines held in the service. Where people were prescribed ‘as required’ medicines, there were clear protocols in place. These stated the circumstances in which the person should be supported to take the medicine. Records demonstrated staff had followed these protocols. Monthly audits of the medicines systems were completed, with action taken where any shortfalls were identified.