Weavers Court 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. This is the first assessment for this service under the new provider. This key question has been rated good.

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. Accident, incident and falls were accurately reported and robustly reviewed, with clear analysis for trends and themes and actions taken in a timely manner following each event.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed and monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. People had access to health and social care professionals.

Information was obtained from people, and others involved in their care, about people’s individual needs and risks they might face. This was used to develop individualised care and risk management plans to ensure people received safe and appropriate care and support from the moment they moved into the care home.

The provider did not always share concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff received safeguarding training and were aware of what was required and how to report these. Safeguarding incidents were on the whole logged and appropriately reported to partner agencies, for example, the Local Authority and CQC. However, on one instance this had not been reported quickly and appropriately with families and outside professionals. We discussed this with the management team who had completed an investigation and reviewed lesson learnt.

People, relatives and staff told us it was safe at the service. One staff member told us, “This is a safe place for everyone as they have what they need and enough staff.”

Where people had Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLs) in place, these were managed 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.

Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed using several recognised risk assessments such as Waterlow for skin integrity and MUST for Risk assessments to provide guidance to staff on how to mitigate risks to people. Risk assessments had been completed with people and/or their representatives. These were continually reviewed and amendments made to care practices where change was required.

People’s care plans recorded discussions about risks, ways to mitigate them and making choices and decisions about their day to day lives.

Positive behaviour support plans were in place to guide staff on how to support people through heightened levels of anxiety. These documents included what could be a trigger for people, how they would present if they were highly anxious, and distraction techniques staff could use to calm them.

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.

We found Pat testing (Portable Appliance Testing)was out of date for the service. We discussed this with the provider who completed this within 48 hours. The management team told us they would ensure this was recorded appropriately to ensure they had oversight of this in the future.

People had appropriate equipment in place where required, equipment such as zimmer frames were always within easy reach of people. Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan(PEEPs) were in place for people.

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 recruitment processes were in place with relevant checks of staff’s employment history, character, right to work, and checks with the disclosure and barring service (DBS).

People told us they felt safe. One person said, “Yes, I feel safe and well looked after, whenever I want anything, they are available.” Another person said, “I feel safe as I know everyone here.”

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. Staff received training in infection control and no concerns were raised by staff about the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE).

The home was very clean, and observations of cleaning was in place on both days of assessment. We discussed the need for cleaning rotas to be completed in full where gaps were evident. The manager told us this would be discussed in the team meeting.

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.

Effective systems were in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. Records showed all medicines were in stock and none had been missed. Time-specific medicines were given at the correct time. One relative told us, “[Name of person] gets [their] medication at the same time.” Another relative told us, “[name of person] gets [their] medication regular, and they stay while [their] takes it.”

Protocols provided clear guidance for staff on when to administer ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines.

People received their medicines at the right time. Records showed all staff who administered medicines had completed up to date training and their competency to support people with medicines was assessed.