Drayton Court

We found no evidence people had been harmed but some risks to people's health had not always been assessed or monitored. Where risks were identified, records were not always accurately updated to reflect changes.

Records did not provide assurance people received their medicines as prescribed. Where discrepancies in stock levels were identified, it was not always clear what action was taken to investigate the errors or ensure the person's health was not adversely affected. Some people had medicines that could be given when required to reduce short term conditions such as anxiety or pain. Records were either not in place or did not contain enough information to support staff to know at what point to administer these medicines.

There were enough staff to keep people safe. However, there were particular times of day where staff could not provide timely, high quality care. The recruitment process continued to ensure staff were suitable for their roles by conducting relevant pre-employment checks.

People told us they felt protected from the risk of abuse and staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The home was clean, and staff followed good infection control processes. The home was facilitating visiting in line with government guidance.

A new manager had been recently employed and was committed to driving forward improvements at the home. People and staff spoke positively about the new manager. The provider recognised the importance of being open and honest when things went wrong. Learning from incidents was used to educate staff to prevent reoccurrence.