The Vineries

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- At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 66 (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.

Staff said there were opportunities to meet and reflect on their practices and incidents. Risk assessments were generally robust. Staff knew people well and were quick to identify and report changes. Staff were confident in reporting to their manager.

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.

Complimentary feedback was received from health care professionals regarding people’s care and support. Professional staff told us staff were welcoming and knowledgeable and said the service made appropriate referrals and worked with partner agencies including secondary provision.

The provider did not always share concerns quickly and appropriately or work with all partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that.

However, they did concentrate on improving people’s lives or protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

The registered manager and her staff understood the signs of abuse and how to protect people in their care. However, we found incident reporting low and a number of incidents notifiable under regulations had not been reported. This would have ensured full accountability and appropriate follow up where necessary.

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.

Whilst we had some concerns about the environment which could increase individual risks to people, people and their relatives told us they felt safe and changes were quickly communicated and acted upon. One relative said, It’s a lovely home. They’ll do anything you ask them to. All the staff are brilliant.’ Another relative told us their family member had a fall and said this was communicated straight away, and staff acted quickly and put a pressure mat in place.”

Records were generally robust, but we found information was not always reviewed in a timely way.

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 environment was clean and mostly in good order. However, the service relied on shared maintenance, and we highlighted some concerns not identified by provider audits. These included gaps in testing and checking of equipment such as fire alarms, gaps in water testing and a number of high-water temperatures recorded at people’s sinks, uncovered pipes, a wardrobe coming away from the wall, moss on fire escapes, clutter outside including an uncovered fishpond which could be hazardous. The registered manager said people would not go into the garden unsupervised, but most did not have a deprivation of liberty safeguard in place so were not subject to constant supervision.

The provider did not have effective tools to ensure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. We were not assured about the skills mix at all times or how the provider assured themselves that the staffing levels matched the needs of people using the service.

During our observations and the extensive feedback, we received we observed regular staff to be competent and there was good oversight of care from the registered manager to ensure the care people received was effective and timely. However, staff sickness and staffing vacancies over time had resulted in the use of long-term agency and a lack of structured social activities to prevent people getting bored and socially isolated. Whilst most people were complimentary about care staff regular activities could really enhance people’s day. Across our 2 days the only activities were a singer and a hairdresser with nothing planned for most of the days. Staff told us people lacked social stimulation and alot of people spoken with remained in their rooms and did not benefit from the organised activities. One person told us, " I am generally happy with my care, but I realise that they can't be everywhere, there's just not enough staff."

Staff expressed concern that agency staff were not as familiar with people’s needs as regular staff, with one staff member saying,” Agency staff don’t have the necessary skills.” The registered manager was not able to clarify if the recruitment agency completed regular supervisions of agency staff and the registered manager confirmed they did not provide supervision for agency staff. We raised concern about the poor level of detail in the agency ‘one page profile.’ The 3 that we looked at contained the most basis of information and did not document the agency workers care experience or if they had previously worked with older people or people living with dementia or the length of time they had worked in care. There was no recorded induction for agency staff.

Some staff were operating in dual roles and covering care and the kitchen, cleaning and the laundry, care staff including the registered manager and the deputy manager were covering shifts both day and night which had an impact on their primary role and affected oversight. We found gaps in recording and an unsystematic way of recording data which made records audits much more difficult to do.

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.

Arrangements were in place to ensure the home remained clean and the spread of infection controlled.

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.

Medicines were well organised and administered by competent staff. Whilst mistakes did happen these were quickly identified and dealt with effectively.