Dearne Valley Care Centre

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. The provider had a system in place to learn from any accidents or incidents. This reduced the risk of them reoccurring. Staff actively listened to safety concerns, responded promptly and carried out thorough investigations that led to improvements at the service. The registered manager had fostered an ethos of learning rather than blame which empowered staff at all levels to speak up with confidence. Staff told us they felt valued, heard and fully supported. Staff understood how their feedback and incident reporting contributed to enhanced safety and better outcomes for people.

The registered manager reviewed records of any accidents or incidents, such as if someone had a fall, on the day the incident occurred. This enabled them to check staff had dealt with the incident appropriately and make sure immediate action was taken to reduce the risk of it happening again. The registered manager then analysed the accident and incident records every month to identify any trends and common causes.

The management team understood their duty of candour, to be open and honest when things went wrong. For example, when incidents had occurred in the home, these were immediately communicated to relatives and reported to professionals appropriately.

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 showed a clear commitment to person‑centred care from the outset. After receiving the initial referral, they quickly engaged with the person and, where appropriate, their family to get to know them and carry out a thorough assessment of their needs. Health and social care professionals involved in the person’s care were included in the process, ensuring a holistic approach that enabled the provider to plan the right support.

The registered manager regularly sought advice from community health professionals such as the GP, district nurses and the community falls team. This process supported staff to achieve good outcomes for people and to help maintain their health. We received positive feedback from a health professional visiting the service during our inspection. They informed us staff proactively sought their advice if they had any concerns about a person's health and any advice they gave was acted upon.

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.

Without exception people told us they felt safe living at the service. One person said, “I feel safe, nice place, no problems whatsoever.”

Staff understood what it meant to protect people from abuse. Staff told us they felt confident and fully supported to raise concerns. One member of staff said, “I 100% feel able to report concerns to my manager.” Another staff member told us the service had an “Open team culture where everything gets reported.”

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. 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).

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether the service had obtained the appropriate legal authority to deprive people of their liberty and whether any conditions on any DoLS authorisations were being met. Staff worked within the principles of the MCA and supported people to make their own decisions when they had capacity to do so. People's care records demonstrated people's capacity to make decisions had been appropriately assessed and kept under review. Where people lacked capacity, best interest decisions had been made and were clearly recorded in people's care records. The registered manager maintained an overview of the applications made to deprive people of their liberty. Applications were appropriately made and where authorisations were subject to conditions, these conditions were recorded in people's care records. The service complied with any conditions imposed.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff supportive care that enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Systems were in place to identify and reduce risks to people. People's care records included assessments of specific risks posed to them, such as a risk of malnutrition and a risk of falls. The risk assessments were reviewed each month or more frequently if a person's needs changed to help ensure they consistently identified the level of risk as a person's needs changed. If a person was assessed to be at risk, a care plan was written to provide staff with clear guidance on how to support them to manage the identified risk.

Risk assessments were person centred and provided staff with clear guidance on how to support people to manage the identified risks. A relative told us the service achieved a good balance between promoting their family member's independence, whilst providing them with the support they needed.

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 design, adaptation and decoration of the premises considered the needs of the people living in the home. For example, there was pictorial signage on doors and on the walls in the corridors to help people navigate their way around the building. People had access to several sitting areas and access to a pleasant outside space. People were able to choose where they would like to sit and who they wanted to interact with.

Regular checks of the building and the equipment were carried out to keep people safe and the building well maintained. The home had relevant safety certificates for the equipment they used, such as hoists. The certificates were up to date and the equipment within the building was checked every month to see if it was in good working order.

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 enough staff available to ensure people's care and support needs were met. The registered provider had effective recruitment procedures in place to make sure staff had the required skills and were of suitable character and background.

Staff received regular training to ensure they had the right skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care. The training the provider considered to be mandatory included moving and handling, health and safety, fire safety, safeguarding, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and infection control. Staff were happy with the training they received.

Staff were supported by the management team through supervisions and appraisals. Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager, and they could always raise any concerns or questions with them.

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.

Dearne Valley Care Centre was clean and there was an effective infection control system in place. Staff followed cleaning schedules and had access to personal protective equipment such as gloves and aprons. All staff received training in infection control when they started working at the home. One relative said, “The whole Home is kept very clean and nice smelling on the whole and carers are always wearing PPE when they are working.” Another relative said, “You never see the carers without their PPE. The whole place is kept clean for the residents, and I noticed that it’s one of those places when you walk in with no smells.”

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.

Medicines were obtained, stored, administered and disposed of safely by staff. People were receiving their medicines as prescribed by their GP. Staff were trained to administer medicines and their competency to do so was checked. Where people were prescribed medicines to be taken 'as and when required', there were detailed protocols in place which provided staff with guidance about when people may need these medicines. For example, where people could not inform staff verbally that they were in pain, the protocols described the symptoms staff should look out for to assess whether the person needed their medicine.