Castleford House 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 felt safe and protected from the risk of harm and abuse. Staff knew people well and were able to notice any changes in people’s wellbeing. Systems were in place to keep people safe. Records showed staff had been trained in safeguarding. Staff told us how they would report any concerns and they were confident these would be dealt with appropriately. Care plans and risk assessments were clear and contained guidance on how to minimise restrictions and keep people safe. There were sufficient staffing levels to meet peoples’ needs and staff had been recruited safely. Systems were in place to support staff and make sure they had opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge. Records showed a wide range of training had been completed. Accidents and incidents were reviewed to identify developing trends which might indicate people’s care needs were changing.

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.

People felt supported by staff who were kind and helpful and people felt able to raise any concerns. Everyone said they felt safe. They said, “I have Alzheimer’s. The staff try to help me feel as normal as possible” and “The manager is very nice.” One relative said, “They [staff] are happy to talk if I raise any issues.”

Staff told us they knew how to report potential abuse. Staff knew people well which meant changes in people’s behaviour suggestive of distress was identified promptly and acted upon. They had received safeguarding training and were confident that managers would ensure the right action was taken.

We saw staff taking time with people when providing care and support. There was a lot of engagement through the site visits between people and staff. Staff recognised if people were not feeling well or were feeling low or anxious and spent more time with them. We observed staff respected one person’s refusal to move from a lounge to the dining room for lunch, and supported them with their meal in a person-centred way in the lounge.

Staff used an electronic care planning system to report concerns, accidents and incidents. This enabled the management team to have oversight at any time. The Safeguarding policy and processes ensured safeguarding referrals were made to the local authority as necessary. Records showed the majority of staff had all completed safeguarding training.

People felt supported by staff with their individual needs and were able to summon assistance when they needed. People said, “Staff listen” and “I don’t want for anything.”

Staff felt they had enough clear information in the care plans which they could access using handsets at any time. Monitoring records were kept up to date. For example, people who spent time in their rooms were regularly checked on and good pressure care management helped to reduce the risk of skin breakdown. Specialist mattress checks were completed in care documentation detailing people’s current weight and mattress settings. One nurse we spoke to shared they were passionate about nutrition and had developed a booklet which had people’s nutritional needs in it.

Staff were observed using equipment safely, which was readily available and safely stored. We observed staff taking time to enable people to be as independent as possible and do what they could when mobilising. They communicated well.

Risks to people had been identified and fully assessed. Any increased risk such as issues with mobility or swallowing difficulties were reviewed and appropriate health professionals contacted. Emergency evacuation plans were in place and easily accessible, which described the support each person would need in the event of an emergency. These were up to date and reflected people’s current needs.

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

People spoke highly of the approach and attitude of staff, and we observed people knew and trusted them. Comments included, “I feel so comfortable that [staff member] knows so much about my family.” and, “Staff do take care of everyone’s needs, like on your birthday.”

Staff were happy in their roles and felt well supported. They told us they received appropriate training and supervision. They felt staffing levels were sufficient to be able to deliver safe care and support. The provider used a dependency tool to determine staffing levels. The manager told us about the training provided for staff, including the opportunity to complete Level 2 and 3 Apprenticeships in Health and Social Care. The manager told us how they support staff who need flexible working. The manager told us “I want my staff to feel valued. It's about hearing people.”

Staff were visible during the inspection. They spent time with people and engaged in conversation, and they provided care and support. Staff were not rushed and had time to sit with people and engage with them in a meaningful way. We observed adequate staffing levels, and confirmed these were normal levels on the staff rota. We observed people in their rooms on the upper floors being supported in bed and there were staff nearby during the day to ensure they were not left on their own. We observed staff engaged in activities chosen by people. For example, we observed staff taking people for walks around the garden. The Home had 3 lounges/conservatory and we saw staff always situated in a lounge close by people.

People were cared for by staff who had been recruited safely. Records confirmed staff received regular supervision and an annual appraisal to help them develop within their role. A staff training matrix confirmed staff received training appropriate to their roles.

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.