Stanway Villa

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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 66 (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.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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 did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Whilst people had risk assessments in place, we found some inconsistencies across their care plans and risk assessment documentation. This meant staff did not always have access to clear, up-to-date guidance to follow.

Despite these concerns, staff were knowledgeable about people's individual risks and understood how to minimise them. They provided care that was safe, supportive, and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Following our feedback, the provider confirmed they were reviewing people's risk assessment documentation to ensure the information was accurate, up to date, and consistent across records.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. During the inspection, we found not all environmental risks had been identified and addressed. For example, a wardrobe was not properly secured, some radiator covers required replacement, and fire safety documentation needed updating. The provider responded immediately during the site visit by updating the fire safety information and arranging for the relevant items to be secured or replaced.

Following our site visit, the provider confirmed they were reviewing their environmental monitoring processes to ensure more robust checks were implemented.
 

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Whilst we found there were enough staff available to meet people's needs, we received mixed feedback from relatives and staff about the consistency of staffing. They told us several experienced staff had left the service, resulting in a reliance on agency staff who were less familiar with people. This meant people were not always supported by staff who knew them well. The provider acknowledged there had been vacancies within the service and told us they had recently recruited new staff to improve continuity of care going forward.

The provider had carried out appropriate recruitment checks to ensure staff were safely employed. Staff also received the training and support they needed to develop in their roles.
 

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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