Wisteria House Residential Home - Somerset

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Risks to people's safety and wellbeing were assessed and planed for. Assessments covered a range of risks and were personalised for each person. Risks to people and staff were kept under review.

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.

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

People were able to take risks as part of their chosen lifestyle. People were supported to understand the risks associated with their care as best they could. One person spoke with us about risks and their safety. They told us, “Oh yes, of course it's a safe place to live. I feel very safe here, very safe. They [staff] can't do enough for you here. I am very happy living here. No complaints from me at all.” One relative we spoke with told us, “There are no risks here that I’m aware of. It's a safe place for mum. I never have to worry about her. I think she is safe and well cared for. The staff know her really well. I am really happy she is here.”

Staff knew people well and understood any risks associated with people’s care. For example, staff knew who required support with mobility, such as when using a stair lift. Risks were kept under review and discussed by the staff team. Following a recent incident, the staff team had discussed and improved environmental safety in relation to the stairs. Comments from staff included: “We did have a discussion about it as a team. [Following the changes we made], I think it is better now. I do think it is a safe place for people and think people do get good care here. They seem happy” and “I think it is safe for people. We have discussed [the recent incident] as a team to see if there is anything we could have done or could do to prevent it happening to someone else. The [safety improvements made] seem to work well.” The registered manager was also taking forward other ideas to improve safety and to respond to people who needed care and support more quickly. This included upgrading the call bell system used in the home. They had consulted widely with other health and social care professionals who supported the service, including the CQC, to ensure all options to improve safety had been considered.

We saw staff worked in a safe way. For example, staff made sure there were no trip hazards for people. Staff encouraged and supported people who used mobility aids to use them safely and effectively.

Staff kept people safe by regularly reviewing and updating people's risk assessments and their care as their needs changed. People's individual care plans were designed to guide staff practice. They included guidance for staff in relation to how to prevent or appropriately manage risks associated with any incidents or accidents which had occurred. A review was carried out if an accident or incident occurred. This included a risk review to see if any changes or improvements could be made to reduce risk or prevent recurrence. There were some risk reducing measures in place for people which they had not been able to consent to. This included the use of pressure mats which alerted staff when people were moving in their own rooms or in some communal areas. Their use was in people’s best interests, but the correct decision making process had not been followed. Neither had their use been included on the applications submitted to deprive people of their liberty (generally referred to as DoLS). These issues were discussed with the registered manager who agreed with our findings. They took prompt action on both of these issues during our assessment process to ensure people’s rights were protected.

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

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.