Somerleigh Court

“Medicines were not always safely stored and administered. We saw medicine fridge temperatures had exceeded the upper limit for 7 consecutive days. People who had time sensitive medicines did not always receive these within a 30-minute window. There was a lack of clear guidance on variable dose medicines. There were risk assessments in place for medicines use however some risk assessments for people using paraffin based flammable emollients were not in place.”

“Assessments took place prior to admission to ensure people’s needs could be met at the service. Care was delivered in line with nationally recognised good practice. Regular observations were completed to maintain oversight of people’s health and wellbeing. Staff knew people well and ensured their care was delivered in line with people’s preferences. Resident of the day initiatives had ensured people’s care plans and other records were regularly reviewed. However, we found Mental Capacity Act (MCA) assessments had not always been completed in line with the Act or involved all relevant people. They had, in some cases been signed by staff who did not have the authority to do so.”

“The provider was still embedding its values into the service. There was a new manager in post who had already made positive changes and feedback so far was that there was confidence in their abilities. Prior to the new manager commencing, staff told us they would not have spoken up about concerns as there would have been no action as a result. There was a diverse workforce due to staff members on sponsorship which enhanced the team. There were no concerns about discrimination raised. Oversight of all aspects of the service was effective due to the provider’s initiatives in developing new systems that worked with existing systems to enhance their understanding.”

“The provider understood their responsibility under the Accessible Information Standard. They sent quality assurance surveys to people, staff and relatives each year and used responses to guide improvements. The provider had an open-door policy and staff, people and relatives were all welcome to access the manager to discuss concerns. People had not always been supported to develop end of life care plans.”

“The provider ensured when things went wrong, lessons were learned and shared among relevant team members. Staff were trained in safeguarding and were confident the manager would address any concerns they raised. Risks were assessed and mitigated as far as possible. The premises were mostly in good repair and there was a plan in place for refurbishment. A dependency tool was used and updated daily to calculate the numbers of staff needed to provide support to people.”

“We observed caring interactions between staff and people and staff knew people well. People were encouraged to maintain their independence and staff were enabling when possible. There were initiatives in place to support and celebrate staff.”