Regent 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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always demonstrate a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Some staff told us they did not always have the opportunity to raise their concerns with the registered manager, especially in supervisions. The provider assured us that this would be addressed following the assessment. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were generally learnt from reviewing incidents and accidents. This helped to continually identify and embed good practice. For example, the rate at which people experienced falls had reduced. Learning around infection prevention and control, risks to people and falls management had taken place to ensure that risks to safety were assessed and managed. The registered manager and nursing staff had oversight of recorded incidents to determine what actions were needed and whether changes to people’s support needed to be made.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Assessments were carried out to assess and review people’s needs using information from family members and other health partners. This ensured the provider knew of current risks and could inform care staff before admission. Care plans detailed people's health conditions and provided the guidance staff needed to seek additional professional health support and when to make appropriate referrals to partners. People and their relatives confirmed that they were involved in the assessment process and that staff sought professional support from the nursing team when needed. One professional told us, “I have been working with Regent House for just over a year now, and throughout this time, I have found the staff to be very welcoming and cooperative.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities. The registered manager and staff knew who to raise concerns with and to notify the CQC if they needed to. Staff had safeguarding training and told us they knew how to recognise when people may be unsafe or at risk of abuse. One relative said, “I think [Loved One] is very safe here.” Another person told us, “Staff pop their heads round to check on me. The fire alarms go off for burnt toast so I am safe in that respect too!”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Risks to people had been identified and assessed. The actions to mitigate risk were person centred and ensured that care plans had the information staff needed to manage these safely. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. For example, care plans were detailed around certain risks to people. Management of skin integrity, their nutrition and hydration needs and mobility were all assessed and reviewed and acted upon accordingly. One relative said, “The staff are mindful. [Loved one] was losing weight, and they were on it straight away.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Risks associated with the safety of the environment and equipment were identified and managed appropriately. The provider had a very effective and knowledgeable maintenance member of staff and they ensured fire safety checks had been undertaken. People had personal emergency evacuation plans which informed staff of how to support people to evacuate the building in the event of an emergency. Equipment was regularly checked and maintained to ensure people were supported to use equipment safely.

The provider did not always make sure staff felt supported and received effective supervision and development opportunities. Staff told us that since the deputy manager had left, the opportunities to raise issues through supervision had been reduced. This meant staff did not always feel supported by the registered manager. One member of staff told us, “There was a bit of friction between different members of staff which made work uncomfortable. I could have raised this if I had supervision. I would have felt more supported. Another member of staff told us, Formal supervision doesn’t happen.”

Following our assessment, the provider and registered manager had reviewed their systems and implemented a process to ensure a better oversight and recording of supervisions. The provider has assured us that this had been communicated to staff.

However, there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Staff did work together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff were recruited safely to ensure people employed at the service were appropriate to provide, safe and effective care.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. The service was clean and tidy. Staff were trained in infection control and there was a policy and procedure in place which staff could access. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to prevent the spread of infection. Housekeeping staff had a cleaning schedule which ensured that the environment was kept hygienically clean. There were plentiful supplies of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) on each floor and this was easily accessible to staff. One person said, “The home is very clean. I see cleaners all the time.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Systems and processes were in place to ensure that people’s medicines were managed, stored and administered safely. We observed safe administration of medicines. The nurse administering the medication spoke to people asking their opinions and explaining what the medicines were for in a friendly and professional way. People and their relatives told us they were involved in discussions and decisions around their medicines management. One person said, “We get all our medication, the nurses are qualified to give me my tablets. Sometimes the evening medication is a little later than normal but that is rare.”