Long Eaton View Care 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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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.

Accidents and incidents were documented electronically by staff and linked to any care notes which related to the incident. This meant that it was possible to easily analyse all of the recorded information when an incident occurred. Leaders reviewed accidents and incidents on a regular basis and completed a “recommended actions” review which documented any learning and actions taken.

Staff told us that they felt comfortable in raising any concerns that they may have with leaders – this meant that a positive culture existed where learning was encouraged.

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.

The provider did not always fully complete some healthcare records. Some people’s fluid charts, showed how much they drank on a daily basis, however, these were inconsistent and showed variations in the volume of liquid people had consumed. Staff advised us that people had received adequate hydration and there was no evidence to suggest people were dehydrated. Gaps were also found in some people’s oral hygiene charts - staff assured us that people had cleaned their teeth daily, but records had not been completed consistently, meaning that there was incomplete evidence of this happening. Leaders advised us that some of the gaps may have been where people were more independent and had attended to their own needs, however leaders acknowledged that if people require monitoring in these areas the records needed to be maintained consistently. Leaders told us that they would ensure that staff completed records consistently going forward.

Relatives said that the provider did not always communicate effectively with them and involve them in care planning. One relative told us, “I did get involved inmy relative’scare plan when they came to the home buthavenot had much involvement since”. Another said “The only area that is lacking is communications.They could be improved”.

Handover meetings were completed by staff at the end of each shift, with the senior carer from the outgoing shift providing a summary of important information for staff who had just begun their shift. A handover booklet was kept on each floor of the building where important information was recorded so that staff could be made aware of any changes and developments in people’s care on a regular basis.

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.

The provider had a robust safeguarding policy in place which advised staff of how to report and escalate any safeguarding concerns. This policy was informed by the most current legislation and guidance. This showed that the provider understood their safeguarding responsibilities and provided staff with the means to safeguard people effectively.

Staff and leaders understood how to spot signs of abuse and how to escalate these concerns and make referrals to external agencies such as the local authority or CQC if they needed to do so. There was a safeguarding adults policy procedure in place so that staff could refer to this if they required guidance on the procedure. Safeguarding training was provided as a mandatory requirement regardless of staff’s role, so all staff were aware of their responsibility for keeping people safe.

The provider involved people in decision-making about their care and sought consent from people before acting. Where people did not have the mental capacity to make a decision, the provider ensured that they assessed their mental capacity and the decision that needed to be made. They took the least restrictive approach that they could and applied for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) authorisation where required.

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.

Care plans contained detailed information about people’s needs and advised staff on how to support people appropriately. Care plans were person-centred, with people’s views and preferences recorded so that staff knew how to support each person in the way that they wanted. For example, one care plan advised that a person liked going out into the local community without staff supervision. The person agreed that staff could ensure their safety by making a record of when they left the building and calling them on a regular basis to ensure that they were safe and well. The person also had a “herbert” protocol in place. This is a form containing key information about a person which can be sent to the emergency services if a person goes missing. This showed that the provider had considered the person’s needs and supported them to access the community but also ensured their safety by assessing the risk and putting a support plan in place.

Another person had a care plan and risk assessment in place which advised of a risk to a person whilst acknowledging they sometimes chose not to follow the advice that was given to them to avoid this risk. It was clearly recorded that the person had the mental capacity to understand the risks involved. This showed that the provider assessed and managed risk but also respected the individual’s choices.

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

The building was spacious which allowed wheelchairs and equipment to be moved around the care home with ease. Two lifts were available in the centre of the building to allow people with limited mobility to move easily between floors. Wheelchair ramps ensured accessibility in and out of the main entrance of the building and into the outside areas of the care home.

The building was laid out and decorated with consideration to what can constitute a dementia friendly environment. For example, the furniture was a contrasting colour to the floors and walls so that they were easily distinguishable for people with visual and or cognitive impairments. The building was laid out so that there were few dead ends, which minimised the chance of people getting lost or frustrated when trying to move around.

All staff received training in moving and handling regardless of their role. This meant that in the event of an emergency, all staff would be able to support people to evacuate the building.

Maintenance staff worked to attend to any repairs which needed to be completed around the building.

One relative told us “[Person’s] room is lovely,freshand clean and personal to them. There are plenty of good,safe spaces for them to enjoy.”

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.

The care home was fully staffed and leaders told us that they had not needed to use agency staff since opening in 2022. Any staff leave due to sickness or holidays was covered by existing staff members picking up additional hours. The provider had a safe staffing policy and procedure which provided guidance to staff and leaders. The provider also completed a dependency tool which calculated people’s needs and how many staff were required to safely meet people’s needs and keep them safe. Regular reviews meant that leaders could ensure that the dependency tool reflected people’s current needs.

In addition to role specific training, all staff were given the same induction which included training in basic care and in moving and handling. So in the event of an emergency all staff were trained in how to support people to evacuate the building safely.

Staff received comprehensive training with a combination of online and in-person modules. Care coordinators had completed “train the trainer” courses so that they were able to deliver in-house training courses to their colleagues. This meant the care home was not reliant on external training providers for all courses and could schedule training in quickly if needed. Many staff were experienced in working in care roles prior to working for the provider, so they were able to pass on their experience to colleagues.

One person told us, “I know some of the carers who worked with me previously before I came to live here, it's nice to be familiar with people".

One relative told us, “There is always someone to give my relative the support they need”.

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 provider had an infection control policy in place which was informed by national legislation and good practice guidance. This meant that cleaning staff were following the most current practices.

Domestic staff were deployed daily and worked to established cleaning rotas to ensure all areas of the care home were cleaned regularly. Completed tasks were signed off and audited by management to maintain oversight.

Laundry was managed using colour-coded bags and a clearly defined in-and-out flow system to prevent cross-contamination and reduce the risk of infection.

Staff were observed using appropriate PPE, with well-stocked PPE stations available at intervals around the care home. The provider observed Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) regulations, ensuring that hazardous substances were stored in locked areas of the care home where they could only be accessed by qualified staff.

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.

An Electronic Medication Registration Record (EMAR) was used to record the administration of medicines. The system prompted staff to administer medications at the appropriate time and prompted staff with warning messages to ensure they were administering the correct medicine and dose to the correct person. Qualified staff had to log in to a system with a password before they administered medication. This meant that only appropriately trained staff could document medicine administration in the EMAR, and that if there was a medication error, it would be possible to trace the staff member who made the error by checking who was logged in to the system.

Medicines were stored safely in a clinic room on each floor of the care home. Medication stock checks, cleaning checks and temperature checks off the medication room and storage fridges being completed.

Senior carers were responsible for administering medicines and for liaising with the GP and other medical professionals. This meant that any changes to people’s prescribed medicines were discussed directly with the staff who would administer the medicine, ensuring effective communication. There were regular reviews of people’s prescribed medicines, ensuring that they were optimised for people’s health and wellbeing.

Staff received training and had to shadow experienced staff and administer medication under supervision before being signed off to administer medicines on their own. One staff member told us, “I feel really supported, I had training and support from colleagues before I began administering medicines”.

One relative told us, “Regular meals and medication is being givenon time andincorrectdoses,their health has improved andthey are safe in their environment”.