Weybourne

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 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 reported by staff and action was taken to mitigate the risk of events taking place again. Complaints and concerns were recorded and appropriate action taken. The interim manager and the provider demonstrated an open approach and told us about the changes made to senior carer’s role and responsibilities following review of a recent incident.

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.

A relative told us “I have no concerns, it’s very secure there. I feel it’s safe as she is well looked after. One concern I had when she was at home, was her wandering out. I have peace of

mind now, it’s secure, she is safe there.” And another relative said “they are safe in the care home. I feel they is safe because they have a one to one. I am not sure how long it will go on for. They is mobilising well and is still strong.”

People’s needs were robustly assessed before they had started the service. Care records evidenced the involvement of a range of health and social care professionals. Where people’s needs changed referrals were made for specialist health support and advice, including district nurses and the palliative care team. The service had good working relationships with the local GP and older people’s complex teams which supported people to have good continuity of care.

Staff told us they worked well with health and social care professionals and had developed good working relationships. There were clear processes to ensure people’s current information was safely shared and we saw records of this during the assessment. People had been seen by health professionals when required. For example, records showed people were reviewed by a speech and language therapist (SALT) if staff noted swallowing concerns.

We spoke with to health professionals who worked with the service. They said they had a good relationship with the staff. One professional said, “I review the patients’ weekly staff provided clear feedback on them. and I can see the Weybourne have implemented the recommendations I gave.”

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.

A relative told us” I do feel that [Relative] is safe, I have experienced care staff ringing me, I am always contacted if there is an issue or concern. I think my [Relative] is kept safe.”

People were protected from abuse. There was a safeguarding file in place and referrals had been made to the local authority when required. Staff had received safeguarding adults training. Staff understood local safeguarding arrangements and information on how to report any safeguarding concerns was available to people, visitors and staff. Staff and relatives were confident any concerns they raised would be acted upon by the registered manager. They understood how to raise concerns.

A staff told us, “I know our residents are well looked after and safe as it is the registered managers both the old and new manager’s priority that residents are kept safe and we report it to social services and action, steps put in place and we all staff follow them. “

A family member told us, “[Staff] always make sure that my relative] is safe and looked after and go above and beyond for their needs. I would raise it straight away if I saw poor care or abuse.” People and relatives told us they felt safe living atWeybourne.

Managers and staff had an understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). There were effective processes in place for assessing people’s capacity to make decisions people or their advocate and their relatives had been involved in best interest decision making.

he 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.

A relative told us” I do feel that [Relative] is safe, I have experienced care staff ringing me, I am always contacted if there is an issue or concern. I think my [Relative] is kept safe.”

People were protected from abuse. There was a safeguarding file in place and referrals had been made to the local authority when required. Staff had received safeguarding adults training. Staff understood local safeguarding arrangements and information on how to report any safeguarding concerns was available to people, visitors and staff. Staff and relatives were confident any concerns they raised would be acted upon by the registered manager. They understood how to raise concerns.

A staff told us, “I know our residents are well looked after and safe as it is the registered managers both the old and new manager’s priority that residents are kept safe and we report it to social services and action, steps put in place and we all staff follow them. “

A family member told us, “[Staff] always make sure that my relative] is safe and looked after and go above and beyond for their needs. I would raise it straight away if I saw poor care or abuse.” People and relatives told us they felt safe living atWeybourne.

Managers and staff had an understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). There were effective processes in place for assessing people’s capacity to make decisions people or their advocate and their relatives had been involved in best interest decision making.

The provider always worked well with people to fully understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care that fully met people’s needs and was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Family members shared the managers completed a detailed assessment of their relative’s support needs to make sure they could be accommodated. This involved meeting with the person and those close to them to discuss not only their support needs, but also their preferences, likes and dislikes.

People’s support needs were reviewed and reassessed regularly. People and their relatives were positive about their experiences when they started living at the service. One family member said, ‘‘Staff came and did the assessment and made sure they could meet all of [Relative] needs down to the littlest thing. [Relative] has settled in really well.’’ Another family member said, they are well looked after. They come round and check with them and see how they are doing.

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

A family member told us” It’s as clean, as it can be and well maintained. They have had a bit of refurb, have new windows and have decorated. They have sheds and decking and added new area’s facing out. They have a beautiful garden.”

Systems were in place to ensure the service was safe which included checks on equipment such as, utilities, firefighting and detection equipment had been regularly tested and serviced by appropriately by contractors. Lifting equipment had been serviced.

There were fire grab bags in place, which contained equipment to be used in an emergency and personal emergency evacuation plans, (PEEPs) were in place for each person

There was a maintenance person that solely worked in the service. This ensured repairs were completed quickly and safely.

There were pictures outside people's bedrooms to help them find their room and signs on bathrooms to indicate their purpose.

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.

A family member said” It’s quite a few of the same staff there, who work in the same consistent

pattern. I recognise 80% of the staff, I know at least six or seven. I get to see some

of the managers. The staff are consistent at evenings and weekends, when I visit

too.” And another family member said “It seems to be same staff, they seem to know us and we know them. They are always pleased to see us and make us feel welcome.”

Safe staffing levels were in place and the provider used a dependency tool to assess the numbers of staff required. Staffing levels were regularly reviewed when numbers or people’s needs changed.

The provider used safe recruitment processes. There were sufficient staff ensuring people received the care and support they needed. People were supported by staff who had an induction that included shadowing more experienced staff. Staff received face to face and online ongoing training and formal competency checks. Staff told us the training supported them to carry out their role.

Staff confirmed there were enough staff working to support people. Comments included, “Staffing levels are good but there are times when it is busy, or needs are challenging but we senior leads and the managers do help out and “ We work together as a team to meet the needs of our residents especially during lunch time and with personal care these are the busy times or when we are short because of staff sickness the leads and deputy and registered managers are hand on and support so we are not really short of staff”

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.

A family member said “When they are doing personal care. When I am there, I see the staff taking other patients off for a bath or shower. Sometimes they wear masks, they always wear aprons and gloves. From what I can see there’s a good standard of cleanliness.” And another family member told us “I go in different times of day, often I see cleaning going on. The cleaners are very friendly and thorough. [Relative] room looks clean and smells nice. Sometimes if

the cleaner aren’t there, if there is an incident, I have seen the carers do that.”

Staff worked together to keep the service clean and tidy. There was a designated housekeeping team, who followed a cleaning schedule to ensure the home was clean and clutter free.

The home was observed to be generally clean, tidy and free from odour. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was appropriately stored and staff maintained good hand hygiene. All of this contributed to preventing the spread of infection. Shared equipment was cleaned after every use, for example, hoists and shower chairs. A chlorine-based solution used to enable effective cleaning. We observed cleaning schedule of equipment and the correct cleaning solution being used.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.

A family member to us “The medication is all good. They let me know, if there are changes and they are very patient with my [ Relative]. They didn’t want to co-operate at the beginning with them. Now that staff have helped them to feel secure, there are no issues with [Relative] medication, and they go along with it now. “And another relative said” I know they give him medication and what my [ Relative] is on. They will explain any changes. The staff have their tabards on that say do not disturb. That is very good. I have discussed with staff that we will get the GP, soon to have a look, a review.”

Controlled Drugs (CD) were stored safely and securely. Medicines risk assessments and care plans for high-risk medicines were in place, although high risk medicines such as anticoagulants did not always have the right information to ensure that risks were managed safely. The provider has a medicines audit process; although this was being carried regularly, it did not identify issues around fridge temperature monitoring which meant we were not reassured people’s medicines were not stored safely in the fridge.

The provider has a training and competency assessment in place for people who administer medicine. We saw evidence that staff who administers medicine has received training. We observed medicine administration round and saw that people were given their medicines appropriately and as prescribed