Russell Green Care 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 were cared for safely at Russell Green Care home. There were processes in place to protect people from harm. Safeguarding issues were managed safely as staff had good knowledge of how to support and protect people. There were processes in place to support people if they lacked the capacity to make decisions for themselves, this included using mental capacity assessments and best interest meetings to support any decisions made for a person in their best interests. The risks to people's safety were assessed and measures put in place to mitigate these risks. Throughout our visit to the service and assessment of the documentation we received, we saw the measures identified in people's care plans to reduce risks were being used. There were appropriate numbers of staff employed who received training in their roles. The registered manager managed recruitment of staff safely. People were supported to retain their independence and had choice and control over their daily lives where ever possible. There were processes in place to support people's health needs and the registered manager worked with external health professionals to ensure people got the right care for their individual needs.

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.

Throughout our visit to the service we saw positive interactions between people and the staff caring for them.

Staff were knowledgeable about their roles in keeping people safe. They told us they had completed safeguarding training and were able to explain what they would do if they felt a person in their care was subject to abuse. One member of staff we spoke with said their job was, "Protecting the residents in the best way possible and report anything you feel isn’t right." They had confidence the registered manager would deal with any concerns they took to them. All the staff we spoke with knew what they could do if the registered manager did not act on their concerns. A member of staff told us, "If (the registered manager had) not sorted, go to owner and if not sorted go to safeguarding team." The registered manager was clear about her responsibility in relation to safeguarding people in her care.

People told us they felt safe with the staff who supported them. One person said, "The staff are wonderful and they're there when I need anything." Another person said, "I'm safe, warm and comfortable.” We saw people were very relaxed and responded positively to staff. A further person told us, “The staff are very respectful. They do things with you, and not to you.” Relatives we spoke with also had confidence in the staff who supported their family members. Everyone we spoke with felt they could speak to the registered manager about any concerns they had, and she would be responsive to their concerns.

Policies and procedures were available to guide staff about how to protect people from the risks of abuse or harm. Safeguarding materials were displayed in the service. People’s capacity to make decisions was assessed and where necessary decisions made in the individual’s best interests were recorded via best interest meetings. These meetings involved relatives, and health professionals when needed, the potential decisions were discussed and the outcomes recorded. Two relatives said they were always consulted about the person for which they had Power of Attorney, and were kept informed about them as appropriate. If needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to restrict people. The manager had oversight of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations and monitored these to ensure they remained up to date and proportionate for each individual.

People's care plans contained up to date risk assessments which both reflected people's needs and the measures we saw in place. Where people needed bed rails as well as an assessment there was information to show people had consented to have a bed rail in place or a best interest meeting had been undertaken to support the decision to use bed rails.

Staff told us the information they needed about the measures in place to manage the risks to people's safety were in people's care plans. All the staff we spoke with showed good knowledge of how to safely support people and the things they needed to help them in their day to day lives. This included for example, making sure people had the walking aids they needed, the support they needed with eating, if people required bed rails or if people needed regular repositioning due to the risk of skin damage . Both staff and managers worked together to ensure knowledge about people's individual needs were known and managed by staff. Staff were able to talk extensively about how they supported people.

Throughout our visit we saw staff supporting people in line with the information in their care plans. The support was provided in a respectful way with staff involving people with decisions about the way their care was managed. When we visited people in their rooms we saw they had call bells with them, drinks were within reach and where assessed as needed, bed rails were in place fitted correctly with bumpers in place.

People were involved in managing risks to their safety. One person who struggled with an ongoing treatment needed to support their health, told us they had been supported by staff in discussions with their GP deciding how long and when each day they had the treatment as they struggled to tolerate it for very long periods.

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

During our visit we saw people were supported in a timely way by staff. Staff listened to people and ensured they had everything they needed around them. The atmosphere in the service was calm and friendly and people interacted well with staff, who showed good knowledge of their needs.

All the people we spoke with told us there were enough staff to support them with their needs. One person said, "The staff are brilliant." they went on to say, "I think there are enough staff because I don't think we have to wait long, and they always seem to know what to do." Another person said the staff seem to like working there. They said,” They seem to get on and work well together. They all work hard and some even bring their children to visit on their days off. This makes me feel valued.”

We reviewed staff rosters during our assessment and saw allocated staff numbers matched the established needs of people at the service. Staff recruitment files showed the registered manager used safe recruitment processes when employing staff. The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) was used. This service highlights if potential staff have had criminal records and helps leaders make safer recruitment decisions.

Staff we spoke with were positive about the numbers of staff in place to support people. One member of staff said, "Yes there is enough staff." They went on to say they were supported with regular supervision and training. They said, "Yes (training and supervision) and it is useful, but [Registered Manager] has an open door policy and if we have any issues we can go to her about anything there is a lot more support." The registered manager and deputy manager worked together to ensure staff were well supported, both with day to day work load and ongoing training for their roles. They told us they monitored the staff levels regularly using a dependency tool so people's needs were met.

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.