West Eaton 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 75 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider was open and transparent when incidents had occurred. Safety incidents were appropriately investigated and reported, and outcomes shared with the team and when appropriate with relatives. Staff had good knowledge about how to identify and escalate concerns and report these appropriately. Accidents and incidents were discussed in handover meetings as opportunities for learning.

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.

Staff supported people to access other services such as health appointments or attend services like hospital when they needed to. The provider had processes to ensure relevant information was shared with other services and professionals when people were transferred to external services, such as hospitals.

Records demonstrated clear timelines of engagement with external professionals, evidencing continuity of care and effective information sharing. Systems were in place to ensure that changes in people’s health were identified promptly. Staff recognised signs of deterioration and escalated concerns in a timely way, working in partnership with relatives and relevant professionals.

This approach ensured appropriate action was taken without delay, reducing risks to people’s health and supporting safe outcomes.

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.

People told us they felt safe living at West Eaton Nursing Home. One person told us, “I feel very safe living here”. Another person said, “I feel safe here and love the countryside, it’s like a hotel here.”

Staff understood how to safeguard people. Staff were trained in how to recognise and report abuse and were able to articulate how they would spot signs if people were at risk of abuse or harm. A staff member told us, “I would stop it (abuse) straight away and report it to the nurse and the management.”

The provider ensured relevant authorities were notified of any concerns which were then investigated.The registered manager advised in response to safeguarding investigations any lessons learned and opportunities for improvement were identified, and any learning outcomes shared with the staff team.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provider had a system to track and monitor when people required a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard to be in place. The provider followed the principles of the MCA when people needed to make decisions. DoLS applications had been submitted to the local authority for authorisation, in line with legal requirements.

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.

Risk assessment tools were used effectively to identify and manage potential risks, with clear evidence of regular reviews covering areas such as skin integrity, choking risks, diabetes and epilepsy seizures. Assessments were reviewed promptly when circumstances changed, and risk management strategies were updated to ensure people continued to receive safe and appropriate support.People had the equipment they needed to help keep them safe, such as walking frames and sensor mats to support their mobility.

Staff were knowledgeable and had access to people’s care records via hand-held devices which enabled them to provide safe care in line with their wishes and assessed needs. Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) had been developed to inform first responders and staff of the support people would need in the event of an emergency.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Fire and water checks were carried out regularly, and detailed records were maintained for all servicing and checks. The registered manager carried out regular audits of the home and the environment. The environment was free from unnecessary slip or trip hazards which enabled people to move freely and safely around the care home. Safety systems and equipment people needed was in place and serviced at regular intervals to support the safe delivery of care.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

People, relatives and staff confirmed there were enough staff to support people. One person told us, “There is lots of staff here and they know everybody.”

Some staff had worked at the service for many years, which helped provide consistent care for people. During the inspection we observed call bells were answered in a timely manner.Staff were visible, were not rushing, and took time to sit and talk with people. A member of staff told us, “There are enough staff on shift.”

The provider followed recruitment procedures to ensure all required checks were completed before staff started work at the service. Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were carried out. DBS checks provide information about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

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 environment was clean and tidy. There was an up-to-date policy on the control of infection, prevention and control (IPC) which staff could refer to if needed. Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) to use when carrying out personal care tasks. Staff demonstrated good understanding of how to reduce the risk of infection, and regular, monitored cleaning schedules were in place to support staff in maintaining high standards of cleanliness.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People received their medicines safely from staff who were trained in medicines administration.One person told us, “I feel very safe here, my medication is looked after and always explained to me and given on time.” Medication rooms were temperature controlled and records of temperature checks showed rooms and medicine fridges were maintained at suitable temperatures. Records showed people had their medicines administered on time, as prescribed.

We reviewed medicines administration records (MAR) and found these had been completed correctly, with no unexplained gaps. Clear processes were in place for the safe storage and disposal of medicines.

Some people were prescribed medicines on an ‘as required’ basis. Personalised protocols gave staff guidance about how each person would express the need for these medicines and included specific strategies staff could deploy to support the person prior to administering medicines.