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

This service scored 69 (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 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.

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 provider had not always made sure staff were recruited in line with requirements. The service had carried out necessary Disclosure and Barring Service checks to ensure staff suitability to work with people and requested references. However, the service had not always obtained staff’s full employment history as required. We found gaps in a staff member’s employment history and raised this with the registered manager. The registered manager immediately changed the home’s recruitment forms to ensure this information was obtained in future and contacted the staff member to document their full employment history.

People, relatives and staff told us they felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. We observed there were mostly enough staff to support people safely and spend time with people. We had mixed observations of lunchtime over the 2 days we were at the service. On the first day mealtimes were relaxed and there appeared to be enough staff to support people. However, on the second day staff appeared more stretched during lunch time and people’s needs were not always proactively met or met in a timely manner. The registered manager told us changes had been made to include a whole home approach to mealtimes as this was an area the service had identified as more pressured. This was under review at the time of the inspection for its effectiveness. Following the inspection, the registered manager told us they had reviewed staffing levels and the needs of people and there were enough staff to support mealtimes.

Staff had completed a very comprehensive training programme to support them to meet people’s individual needs safely and effectively. Staff told us they felt very supported in their roles. Staff supervision was carried out at regular intervals with additional supervision taking place when required at staff request or to improve staff practice.

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 had not always made sure that medicines and treatments were safe. On the whole people received their medicines as prescribed but we found 1 person’s time-sensitive medicines had not always been administered within a required time frame. This meant the person had not always received their medicine in line with prescribing requirements. We raised this with the registered manager who immediately took action to seek additional guidance from relevant professionals and changed their processes to ensure the person would receive their medicines within the time range in future.

People who had ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines were offered these in line with guidance and staff followed up to determine whether the medicines had been effective. Medicines were ordered when required and stored securely in line with national guidelines. The service used an electronic medicines system but had experienced some stock accuracy issues. They were in contact with the company to try and address these concerns. A solution was found by the system provider, and the registered manager told us they had implemented daily checks to ensure this solution was effective.