Vecta 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

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 had systems in place to identify, investigate and learn from incidents and concerns. Daily stand-up meetings, governance processes, falls analysis, pressure damage investigations and complaints monitoring demonstrated that events were reviewed to identify learning and improvements. Managers were open to feedback during the assessment and took action in response to minor concerns identified about medicines management, environmental risks and access to fluid thickener.

Staff 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. The registered manager was clear about the level of care the home could provide. People's needs were assessed before admission to help ensure the service could safely meet them. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals including GPs, advanced nurse practitioners, paramedics and tissue viability nurses. Records demonstrated people received ongoing support from relevant professionals when their needs changed. Should people require hospital admission key information about the person was provided to support their ongoing care.

Staff worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. People and relatives told us they felt safe living at the service and described staff as caring and supportive. 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. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm and were able to explain how safeguarding concerns would be reported and escalated, including to external agencies where necessary.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that DoLS were monitored appropriately and restrictions were considered within care planning to support care being delivered in the least restrictive way possible.

Staff worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They 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's health, wellbeing and safety were assessed and managed. Care plans and risk assessments contained guidance for staff covering identified risks such as mobility, pressure care, choking risks, nutrition, hydration, epilepsy and behaviours of distress.

Staff balanced risk management with supporting people's independence, choice and freedom, including supporting people to move around the home, make decisions about their daily lives and maintain activities that were important to them. Daily care records generally demonstrated that identified risk-management guidance was followed in practice. Some recording anomalies and outdated terminology were identified within a small number of records. These did not indicate widespread unsafe practice, and the management team agreed to review them.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People were supported in an environment that was generally safe and suitable for their needs. The home provided individual en-suite bedrooms, a range of communal lounges and dining rooms and access to enclosed courtyard and garden areas which enabled people to spend time outdoors and access fresh air.

Environmental safety records reviewed included fire safety checks, gas safety certification, Portable Appliance Testing (PAT), emergency lighting, electrical installation testing, water safety monitoring and maintenance records. Where issues had been identified, the provider was able to demonstrate actions taken or planned, including in response to a recent fire risk assessment. Management and maintenance staff responded positively to the minor issues identified during the assessment and demonstrated actions had either been completed or were planned to further improve safety and the environment.

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. There were generally enough staff with the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people safely. People, relatives and staff provided mixed but largely positive feedback about staffing levels. Some staff told us sickness absence or changes in people's needs could occasionally place pressure on staffing levels; however, they also described managers taking action to arrange additional cover where required.

The provider monitored staffing levels, training compliance and staff competencies to help ensure people received safe and effective care. Staff spoke positively about the training and support available to them and told us they felt well supported by colleagues and managers. Training records showed staff had completed relevant mandatory and specialist training. Recruitment processes were generally robust and the registered manager was undertaking a review of recruitment records to provide assurance that all required pre-employment information had been obtained and appropriately recorded.

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. People were protected by effective infection prevention and control practices. People and visitors told us the home was clean. One visitor described the service as "the cleanest home I've been to", reflecting the positive feedback received about cleanliness standards.

The home was generally clean and well maintained, and inspectors observed good housekeeping arrangements throughout the service. The laundry was organised and demonstrated a clear dirty-to-clean flow to reduce the risk of cross-contamination. Staff demonstrated an understanding of infection prevention and control principles and had completed relevant training to support safe practice. The service had also achieved a 5-star Food Hygiene Rating, providing additional assurance regarding food safety standards.

Staff made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People received their medicines safely and systems were in place to support effective medicines management. Medicines were stored securely and there was evidence of medicines audits, staff training and competency assessments to help ensure safe practice.

We identified some areas where guidance for staff could be strengthened, including the administration of some ‘as required’ medicines (PRN protocols). Staff and managers responded openly to these findings and took action to review and improve arrangements where required.