Highfield House

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 2 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores based on the rating from the last assessment, which was good. Our rating for this key question remains good. The provider responded appropriately when things went wrong and incidents occurred. The provider learnt lessons and took appropriate action to minimise similar incidents reoccurring. The service was adequately staffed by well-trained and supported staff whose suitability and fitness to work at this care home had been thoroughly assessed.

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 the provider acknowledged when things had gone wrong.

Managers and staff told us incidents and accidents, and safeguarding concerns were logged and fully reviewed. Staff confirmed information about any lessons the provider had learnt and how they might improve the service were always shared with them, through daily handovers and regular staff supervision and team meetings. A manager told us, “We are constantly investigating and analysing incidents, so we can learn from them and improve our working practices. I recently looked into an incident and it was clear from my findings that as an organisation we needed to urgently improve how we communicated with each other, kept records and provided clinical training to our staff, which we have now done.”

Clear reporting processes were in place to ensure incidents and accidents were reported and recorded. When serious incidents or near misses occurred a full detailed investigation was undertaken to identify the cause. The learning from these incidents were shared with the whole staff team through the distribution of safety alerts.

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.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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 told us there were enough, competent staff available in the care home to meet their care needs. A person said, “Yes, staff come straight away whenever I call them…I have a bell I can ring.” Another person added, “Staff are good and do come to see me whenever I ask for any help.”

Managers and staff told us the care home was now adequately staffed, which meant the provider was no longer over-reliant on agency staff. A staff member said, “We used to be so reliant on agency staff, far too reliant to be blunt. Things have got a lot better in the past year or so since we’ve managed to employ so many, really good new permanent members of staff.” A manager added, “We’ve gone from having 70 percent of our workforce being agency 2 years ago to using hardly any now, which is quite a turnaround in a relatively short period of time.” Managers confirmed that when they did have to use agency staff they were only used in limited numbers and had restricted duties. Staff received relevant training to support them in their roles. A member of staff said, “The training we have here is very intense, which I mean in a good way. It has to be because the people we look after have very complex health care conditions and needs.” Another member of staff added, “I feel confident and comfortable in my role working as health care assistant on the high dependency ward because of all the excellent training and support I constantly receive from all the managers and staff who work here.” Staff felt supported in their role. A member of staff told us, “We have regular one-to-one supervision and group team meetings with our line managers and coworkers, so I do feel very supported by everyone who works here.” Another member of staff added, “I feel we can rely on each other for support whenever we need it. Staff morale has definitely improved now we have more permanent staff.”

Staff were visibly present throughout the care home and we saw there were enough staff to keep people safe, including providing one to one support when required. Staff were vigilant and ensured people remained safe when they were moving around the care home or undertaking activities in the communal areas. Staff were prompt to respond to any alarms.

The provider’s staff recruitment process was thorough. This included checks on prospective new staff’s identify, previous employment, their character, their right to work in the UK and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. This information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. The providers electronic training records indicated staff had received all the up to date and relevant training they needed which was appropriate for their roles and responsibilities. Staff received a mixture of e-learning and in-person practical and theoretical training, which was routinely refreshed as frequently as staff required it including, in-person practical competency based assessments. This ensured staff stayed up to date with current best practice and their knowledge and skills remained relevant to their roles and responsibilities. Staff had ongoing opportunities to reflect on their working practices and to identify any further training or learning they might need. The providers electronic staff supervision records indicated staff received a minimum of 6 supervision meetings’ a year. This included individual clinical training, group supervision and team meetings, as well as an overall appraisal of their work performance in the last 12 months.

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.