Aire 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment.

This service scored 59 (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 did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. For example, there was a safeguarding concern raised, in relation to a person’s skin integrity and personal hygiene, during our assessment we found evidence that staff were still not recording details in relation to supporting the person’s skin integrity and personal hygiene.The manager told us they had an open and honest culture, and they acted on and investigated any safety concerns reported to them. We received mixed feedback from staff when we asked if they could raise concerns around safety if required to do so. Comments included, “I personally feel more comfortable going to the assistant manager, but that’s just because they have always been here. The interim manager at the minute is also very good and understanding and very approachable” and “I don't feel like I can raise any concerns with the manager as the managers do not stay long at the care home. I could report poor practice to the manager, but I don't think I would be taken seriously depending on what the concern raised was.”

The provider did not always work well with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. They did not always manage or monitor people’s safety. We found that effective systems were not always in place to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to people and keep them safe. We found evidence that one person required an assessment with a Speech and Language Therapist (SALT) which had not been followed up by staff following a chocking incident. During the assessment we did get some assurances from the provider there has been involvement from the GP and the home was going to ensure the SALT team were contacted for an assessment to be undertaken.

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 home had an appropriate safeguarding policy and safe and effective safeguarding practices in place to ensure people were protected from harm or abuse. During our assessment we found safeguarding referrals had been investigated and responded to. The required statutory notifications had been submitted.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. We found that effective systems were not always in place to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to people and keep them safe. We identified some people’s needs were not met in respect of management of skin integrity, personal hygiene, nutrition and hydration. For example, some people’s gaps in repositioning charts were longer than stated in their care plans and people with recent weight loss did not always have their food and fluid monitored. This put people at risk of being harmed and their health and wellbeing deteriorating. People were not always involved in assessing and monitoring their care plans.

The provider did not always detect and control some of the potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. On our first site visit call bells were not in place throughout the building for most people, meaning people were not able to call for assistance if needed. Some people who were at risk of falls had a sensor mat system in place however most people were unable to access a call bell if required. This was discussed on our first visit and on our second visit this issue had been rectified and an audit tool in place to monitor call bells moving forward. Other aspects of the environment were safe and suitable, fire exits were clear from any hazards, windows were secure, radiators were covered, fire extinguishers were in place, lounges and communal areas were warm and friendly.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development. The provider’s training matrix identified some staff were out of date with required training. Staff file audits showed that staff were recruited safely with mandatory checks completed. We received mixed feedback in relation to staffing levels. Comments included “I believe the staffing levels within the home are well below the number of staff to cover all the floors, also there are not enough night staff to cover all floors which poses a risk to the residents and staff on duty”, “Staffing levels in the home at present are adequate”. The home provided evidence of rota for staffing which showed that staff were allocated to work.

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. There was an infection prevention control (IPC) policy and effective processes in place.The manager was clear on the IPC procedures required and their responsibility to provide personal protective equipment (PPE). During our assessment no concerns were identified with IPC, all areas of the home were clean, and staff wore and disposed of PPE correctly. People did not raise any concerns in relation to IPC.

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. We looked at medicine related records for 5 people. We also looked at how medicines were stored, including creams and controlled drugs. Medicines were stored appropriately and organised securely in cupboards and drug trolleys which were kept in treatment rooms throughout the home. Temperature monitoring of the treatment rooms and fridges where medicines were stocked was recorded daily throughout the home. People who were living with specific health conditions had their medicines given on time. People who had medicine patches prescribed had clear documentation in place to ensure these were applied to a different area of the body each time.