Halton 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 inadequate. 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 continued breach of the legal regulation in relation to the ways people’s medicines were managed safely. The provider was also in breach of legal regulations in relation to the environment.

This service scored 56 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

This service generally maximises the effectiveness of people’s care and treatment by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

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. Prior to a person moving into the service or returning from a hospital stay, an assessment of the current needs took place to ensure up to date information was available within their care plan. A family member told us that their relatives needs had significantly changed, and the registered manager and staff had been very supportive in managing the changes needed. In addition, meetings with health care professionals were planned to support these changes. Other family member’s spoke of the support they had received. They explained that during their relative’s recent transfer to another service, staff “Had been organised, understanding and supportive” and “They get the GP when needed and when (relative) had to be admitted to hospital they dealt with it very quickly."

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. Staff received training and were aware of how to raise a safeguarding concern. Information of how to contact the local authority to raise a safeguarding concern was available to all within the service. Staff received training in safeguarding adults and children. People told us that they felt safe using the service. Family members comments included ““I know they (relatives) are being looked after."

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. During this inspection, we observed safe working practices, for example, staff supporting people safely to move around the home. Equipment was available to enable people to be supported safely and minimise risk of harm.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The home was clean and tidy and regular checks were made of facilities and utilities. Some areas of general maintenance required improvement. These improvements included door guards used as part of fire protection required maintenance and regular monitoring as batteries had failed in a number of the devices. One bathroom had a hole in the wall and there was a chipped work surface in a kitchen area. The quick release magnets on some fire doors had been removed. A fire surround in one of the communal lounges was not secured to the wall. An external gate leading to a set of stone steps had a broken lock. The garden area was found unkempt with debris including rubbish, used garden treatment containers, toilet roll, and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). There were large pieces of brick and brick dust along with a build-up of leaves and stones that could create a hazard and tripping risk.

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. Staff were safely recruited, and appropriate checks had been made prior to their employment. Most people told us that sufficient experienced staff were available around the home to give support when they needed it. We observed staff responding quickly to answer people’s call bells and requests for assistance. However, we observed several occasions where experienced staff were not deployed in a communal lounge where people were sitting, and anxieties were raised. This was addressed immediately by the registered manager. One person told us they “Didn’t think there is enough staff at night (8pm – 8am). In the day generally ok. Too much for the staff at night.”

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 enough personal protective equipment (PPE) throughout the home for use when needed.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. People’s medicines records did not always contain allergy information, and this continued to be a risk from the last inspection, however we were sent evidence after the inspection that allergy statuses had been updated for those records we reviewed.

At the last inspection we found that not all staff had an up-to-date check of their competency to administer medicines safely. At this inspection we found people were supported with their medicines by staff who had been trained and had their competency assessed.

There were gaps in the records of administration of medicines, and the remaining balances of medicines did not always match what was expected by the electronic medicine’s records. For medicines to be administered at certain times we found these were not always given at the prescribed times. We could not be assured that people received their medicines as prescribed.

Care plans were in place that gave staff information on how people liked to take their medicines and how to look after people with certain health conditions. There were protocols in place to support staff when people had medicines prescribed to be given when required, however these did not always contain person centred information.

People were supported to look after their own medicines if appropriate and risk assessments were completed. Medicines were stored securely.