Gwen Walford House

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained the same. 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 incidents. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The leadership team shared lessons learnt in the format of a document: Preventing, Protecting and Continuously Improving this was used within the providers care homes to identify areas of improvements. Bulletins of case studies were shared with staff on areas where practice could be strengthened. Where concerns had been identified within the service, rapid audits were implemented to identify any shortfalls in practice. For example, with any gaps in medicines charts or medicines stock counts.

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. Pre assessments were completed prior to a person moving into the service to ensure their needs could be met. People and relatives told us they were part of this process. One relative told us, “Their initial assessment and care plan was discussed at a meeting with the manager at the time”. Another relative told us, “We saw the clinical lead for their assessment and care plan in another home (sister service), then they were moved to Gwen Walford as it was more appropriate for their needs". People’s care plans demonstrated they were supported to access healthcare services when needed. There were systems in place to share information about people should they need to go to hospital in the event of an emergency.

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 and relatives told us they felt safe living at Gwen Walford House, one person told us, “I feel very safe living here”. Relatives shared the same feedback, one relative said, “No concerns around safeguarding or abuse of any kind, they can make choices about their day”. Staff had received training in safeguarding and vulnerable adults and understood their roles and responsibilities to keep people safe. Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns, and these would be listened to and acted upon by the management team. One staff member told us, “If I was worried about anyone, I would report it to my manager. If the manager was unavailable, I would report this to the nurse on shift”.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks relating to their care and support needs, however not all documentation supporting this was clear. Where a risk was identified for a person in relation to their nutritional choices, information in their care plan was inconsistent. We spoke with the person to gain their understanding of their chosen risks, which was also unclear. This meant the person may not have a full understanding of the risks they chose to take. We shared this with the management team who took action to speak with the person to ensure they were aware of their potential risks, and the persons care plan was updated. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs which was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things which mattered to them. People and relatives told us they were involved in care plans and reviews and were kept updated when things changed.

Staff detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Equipment was regularly checked. Environmental checks also took place to ensure the service was safe, clean and free from hazards. People’s rooms were personalised and arranged in a way which met their clinical needs. Some documentation in relation to fire safety was not in the correct location when we reviewed it. In the event of a fire, this may have caused confusion with how many people were in the building and where they were located. This was shared with the management team who rectified the issue and implemented additional checks after each person is admitted to the service.

The provider made sure there were enough staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Staff had received training to ensure they met people’s care needs. Additional training and opportunities were provided to staff who chose to gain further skills. For example, some staff had completed syringe driver training and end of life care. The service had recruitment processes in place. These included references and Disclosure and Barring Service checks (DBS). A DBS is a criminal record check to ensure the staff member is of good character to work with people at the service. However, not all recruitment files we checked obtained full staff employment histories, we shared this with the registered manager and staff provided us with the additional information during our onsite visit.

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. The service was visibly clean and well maintained. People’s rooms were cleaned regularly, and communal areas were kept tidy. Staff had received training in infection prevention, and we observed them wearing appropriate personal protective equipment. The service had a policy and procedures in place for Infection Prevention and Control, and regular audits were completed by leaders.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff had received training and had been competency assessed. There were systems and processes in place to support safe storage, administration and disposal of medicines. However, we identified some people’s medicines did not always have specific times recorded for when they had taken the medicine, we shared this with the management team who made changes to the people’s medicines records. Relatives shared positive comments on how medicines were managed, comments included, “No concerns around their medication, I witnessed a nurse coming to look for them as it was time for their medication. All the nursing staff are beautiful people". And “No concerns around their medication, we have also spoken with their GP, it’s very good".