Richmond Village Coventry DCA

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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.

People were protected through established systems and practices designed to support staff in ensuring people’s safety.

The provider made sure lessons were learned by sharing information about areas they had identified as needing improvement across their services. Information shared with the provider by each of their services was analysed and scenarios were shared with all staff to enable them to learn from them. The registered manager gave an example of how one of the scenarios was linked to oral care. We did not identify any concerns with oral care during our visit demonstrating this method of learning had been effective. Care records confirmed where people had been offered support with mouth care to confirm this was effectively managed.

Staff said when a person had sustained a fall, they would record this in the ‘handover’ book so that all staff coming onto shift would be made aware of this. This helped to ensure measures in place prevented this from happening again. One staff member told us, “We have a memo file. If something has happened, we read about it there, and we talk about it in our supervision and staff meetings.”

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.

When new people started to use the service, arrangements were in place for a detailed assessment to be completed to establish people’s needs. One staff member told us, “We are told about the residents before we start the service. You have the essential information about their needs and any risks but not necessarily their preferences. Then when you meet them you build on that; you form a relationship which helps them share.”

Where there were emergency situations at the service, staff supported people to access the services or care they needed. Where people required emergency healthcare such as a hospital visit or admission, the service shared key information about people’s needs with health professionals.

At the time of this inspection the registered manager was not supporting autistic people or people with specific needs linked to a learning disability. However, training records confirmed staff had completed training on Understanding Autism and Learning Disabilities to help support safe transitions to the service.

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.

People told us they felt safe using the service and with the staff that supported them. One person said they felt “Very safe” and told us, “They (staff) are very careful when helping me. I would probably speak to one of the senior carers or manager if I didn’t feel safe.”

Arrangements were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff told us they had received safeguarding training and training records confirmed this. Staff were aware of how to identify potential abuse and knew what to do if they identified concerns or were made aware of concerns.

The registered manager kept records of safeguarding incidents and ensured these were reported to the relevant authorities. Records showed appropriate action had been taken by the registered manager in response to concerns identified to help prevent them from happening again.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff aimed to provide care to meet people’s needs that was usually safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risks associated with people’s care were usually identified and discussed with them when they started to use the service. However, 1 care plan showed a person had sustained an injury from equipment they used in their home. Although appropriate action had been taken to obtain medical support for the person, the risk assessment had not been updated to help ensure staff addressed any future risks of this happening again. The deputy manager took the necessary action to update this record during our visit.

Staff were made aware of risks associated with people’s care during ‘handover’ meetings and by reading risk assessments and care plans completed for each person. One staff member told us,“On every call we look out for things like rugs, trip hazards. These have to be assessed and addressed. We talk to the resident and explain what the worry is and agree what we need to do to keep them safe.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

An environmental risk assessment was completed for each person using the service to ensure their home was safe for them and for staff. For example, as assessment to check there was sufficient lighting and clear and even pathways that were safe to use. These assessments were held on people’s care plan files. Staff told us they also completed safety checks on each home visit to make sure the environment was safe. For example, 1 staff member said, “When you’re on a call you always look for things that could be a problem like a rug or something left lying about that they (person) could trip over. You have to be alert.” Staff were also instructed to check equipment people needed to support them before they used it to ensure it was safe.

People who received care calls at Richmond Village Coventry were also able to access the communal facilities available at Richmond Village which were subject to maintenance and safety checks.

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 recruited safely in line with the provider’s recruitment procedure and best practice guidance. Staff had completed the necessary training to enable them to carry out their roles and support people safely. This included training linked to people’s specific health conditions so they could meet those needs and identify when medical intervention might be required. Staffing numbers were determined in accordance with care calls required and we saw there were sufficient staff to complete the required care calls. Staffing levels ensured people received their care calls from staff they knew, at the times they expected and for the length of time agreed. Staff supported all people that used the service, so they got to know them and their needs.

The deputy manager and registered manager told us they sometimes completed care calls if there was a need. One staff member told us, “Staffing levels are good. We are a brilliant team. Sometimes it can be tight if you go to a resident and they need a bit more time but then one of the team or the management will step in and help.” Another staff member said, “We are a small team, so the residents know us and we know them. They know who is coming and what time. We provide consistency, that’s important and we can be flexible, even at short notice.”

People told us they had no concerns about the staff and said they were supported by consistent staff team who arrived on time to deliver their care. They told us if staff were going to be late, they were usually notified. One person told us, “The allocated time is enough and I am not rushed.” Another person said “They are only late if an emergency has happened. Occasionally they would let me know but I can always ring them and ask where they are.”

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.

People told us they had no concerns around infection, prevention and control (IPC). They said care staff wore masks, gloves aprons when needed.

Staff understood what to do to keep people safe and prevent the spread of any infection and how to respond if a person developed an infection. They told us they had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) to enable them to work safely. Staff told us, “There are always gloves and aprons for us to use. There is a good stock” and “We do training and have our practice checked.” Records showed staff had completed the necessary (IPC) training to help them work safely. They had also completed food hygiene training.

The provider had up-to-date policies and procedures to guide staff on safe IPC practice. The provider also completed audits to check staff worked appropriately and staff areas were kept clean and tidy to prevent the spread of infection.

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.

People were assisted or prompted to take their prescribed medicines by staff, and medicine records confirmed people received their medicines as prescribed. People told us they had no concerns about how their medicines were managed. One person said, “Carers will advise me to take pain killers if I am in pain.” Another said, “I take my own pain killers. I have every confidence in the carers.”

The registered manager told us some people ordered and administered their own medicines and others were supported to order their medicines and staff administered them. Medicine stock counts were completed weekly where appropriate to ensure people were consuming the right amount. Monthly medicine audits were also completed to check medicines were being managed safely. These audits identified any shortfalls and corrective actions.

Staff training records showed staff had received medication training and senior care staff and the management team regularly observed staff practice to ensure they managed people’s medicines safely. One staff member told us, “The seniors (staff members) check and watch us do medication. You have to fill in the medicine administration record once the resident has taken their tablets, or you put a code if they haven’t and record it.”