Coxbench Hall

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 safe and protected from avoidable harm. Systems were in place to manage safeguarding incidents and staff were trained in safeguarding people from abuse. Risk assessments were in place to reduce people's risk of harm. Care plans contained detailed guidance for staff to follow to meet people's care needs. Sufficient numbers of appropriately trained staff were deployed to support people safely.

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.

Staff we spoke with were consistently positive about the safety of people within the service. Staff had completed safeguarding training and understood their responsibility in line with the safeguarding policy to identify and report abuse. Staff told us there were enough staff on each shift to meet people’s needs safely. The registered manager understood their responsibility in managing safeguarding concerns. The registered manager monitored concerns, reported these appropriately and took action to improve outcomes for people. The registered manager reviewed records to identify themes and trends of incidents record.

During the visit to the home we saw people were supported by kind and caring staff. Staff maintained confidentiality and acted in a way that respected peoples’ human rights. Safeguarding processes were visible and accessible for staff and people.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe. One person we spoke with told us, “I feel safe in the home. I have never thought about not feeling safe”. Another person we spoke with told us, “I would be confident they [staff] would do something about it if I was unhappy.” People’s relatives told us they were confident their family members were safe. One relative told us, “Yes [my relative] is safe, they [staff] really look after them. The care they give is excellent”. Where appropriate relatives were kept informed of what was happening with their family member and could also read what was going on through access to the electronic care record system used in the home.

The provider facilitated staff training and care workers had completed relevant development opportunities. Staff had a basic knowledge of the legislation and best practice. Staff demonstrated their understanding of the importance of always asking for people's permission before supporting them with personal care and other tasks. Where people were deprived of their liberties, appropriate authorisations had been applied for.

Care plans were detailed and identified people's care and support needs, including areas of risk. Robust guidance was available for staff to support people safely. For example, one person was at risk of falls and their risk assessment identified full staff support was required along with equipment to mobilise when the person transitioned to different areas of the home.

Staff we spoke with knew where the risk assessments for people were located and told us they had time to read these. Care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed and staff made aware of updates. The provider involved people in developing strategies to manage areas of risk in their lives. The provider took action in response to staff feedback, for example, facilitating additional specialist training to offer best support for people.

People were supported to be involved in managing the areas of risk in their lives. People who responded to a provider survey felt they were involved in their care decisions and staff supported them in the way they chose. Relatives told us, where appropriate, they were kept informed about risks relating to people. One relative told us, "I am kept informed.They [staff] are very good at doing this."

During the visit to the home we saw people were supported in line with their documented support needs. We saw staff were following people’s care plans, for example, appropriate use of equipment to support someone to mobilise safely. We observed one person being supported to access external health care professional advice. We saw another person supported to safely access transport for an appointment.

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

The provider implemented systems to ensure sufficient suitable staff were deployed to meet peoples’ needs and important information was shared with all staff. The registered manager had oversight of training requirements and supported individual staff to maintain compliance. Training records identified completion of induction, annual competence checks, annual and three yearly training and NVQ level for all staff. The provider facilitated additional specialist training for staff, including supporting people with Autism & Learning Disability Awareness training. The providers recruitment processes were effective. Records confirmed disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks were caried out and references checked. The provider undertook regular meetings with staff including supervisions, appraisals and completed regular competency checks for required areas. DBS was reviewed annually with staff to state there is nothing new to declare on the appraisal

During the onsite assessment we saw staff responded to peoples’ needs and no one had to wait for care. Staff members worked as a team to ensure people attended appointments, activities took place and care was delivered in a safe way. Meetings took place at the end and start of each shift. The purpose of these were to share important information with all staff.

The provider used a dependency tool to ensure there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff told us there were always enough people to support the needs of people using the service. Some staff told us staffing levels were higher than required numbers. Staff were confident that if peoples’ needs changed, the registered manager would increase staffing levels. The provider listened to staff feedback and suggestions, for example, to ensure safe deployment of staff.

People we spoke with were complimentary about the staff team. Comments from people included “They [staff] do anything you need or ask for” and “They [staff] are absolutely friendly kind and respectful”. Relatives we spoke with knew who key staff members were and shared positive feedback. One relative told us, "I know most of them [staff], they are all very pleasant. [Person] is very happy and likes them. People and relatives told us there were enough staff to meet peoples’ needs. One person told us, “There are plenty of staff.” One relative told us, "Definitely enough staff, it’s very well organised." The provider carried out a survey where 100% of respondents rated the staff as excellent or good.

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.