Compton View Residential 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. 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 75 (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.

The provider had systems to support team learning when things went wrong. Incidents and accidents were analysed to identify contributory factors and any actions needed to reduce the risk of recurrence. Following incidents, care plans were reviewed to reflect on what had happened. The registered manager ensured notifications were made to the local authority or CQC where required.

Staff were trained and skilled to provide safe care. Regular handovers and staff meetings ensured updates and experiences were shared. Staff were confident in reporting incidents.

People using the service and their relatives understood how to raise concerns. They said the registered manager was approachable and they would not hesitate to speak with them should they have any concerns. No concerns were raised with us during our time at the service.

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.

Prior to admission people and their families were involved in the pre-assessment process, where the registered manager gathered information to make the transition to a care environment an easier experience.

The team worked with healthcare professionals, including GPs and specialist practitioners, to monitor people’s health conditions and respond promptly to any changes in their support needs.

The registered manager and team were responsive to people’s changing needs and made referrals to healthcare professionals when required.

One professional described how the service was easy to contact and approachable, which helped make sure discharge information and any concerns are shared quickly. They gave an example of how staff had resolved a discharge issue quickly and safely. This supported people to settle into the home as smoothly as possible.

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 said they felt safe and had confidence in staff. They described staff as kind and supportive, and felt protected from harm. One professional said, “We have always found the team to be approachable, organised, and genuinely focused on the wellbeing of their residents”.

The provider understood their responsibilities to report any concerns and made referrals to the appropriate authorities in a timely manner. Staff were aware of the procedures to follow should they have any safeguarding concerns.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA.

There were clear systems for supporting people who lacked capacity, with appropriate use of mental capacity assessments, best interest decisions and DoLS applications.

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.

People at the service were supported and encouraged to stay active and maintain their independence, with no unnecessary restrictions placed on their daily lives.

Staff had access to clear and relevant information to support people safely. Risk assessments covered a range of needs, including skin integrity, falls, and continence care. These were reviewed, and records showed people using the service and, where appropriate, their relatives were involved in the review process. One relative said, “The communication is very good, they discuss everything with us”.

Guidance and instructions from relevant healthcare professionals to reduce health risks were clearly documented and followed by staff. One professional said, “Staff here know their residents. We are always given an update, and communication with them is good”.

We observed staff working safely and supporting people to use equipment correctly. Staff confirmed they had received training to assist people with moving safely using equipment, and this was supported by the records we reviewed.

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 environment was clean, comfortable and generally well maintained, with ongoing redecoration and refurbishment.

Environmental and maintenance checks were completed to ensure any issues were identified and addressed promptly. This included regular checks of window restrictors, hot water systems, and fire safety equipment. Equipment such as hoists were routinely inspected and serviced to ensure they remained safe and suitable for use.

Equipment and adaptations supported independence and ensured safe care, such as assisted baths, raised seats, handrails, and a passenger lift.

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.

We observed there were enough staff available to support people safely. The atmosphere was calm, and people were not rushed. Although staff were busy, they were still able to spend time with individuals and support them with activities.

Feedback about staffing levels was generally positive. People felt there were enough staff available to meet their needs and reported staff responded promptly when they needed assistance. Individuals said they were not rushed and were given the time they needed, which supported both their care and independence. While it was acknowledged staff could be busy and occasional short waits of 5–10 minutes may occur, this was understood due to the needs of others. Overall, staff were described as attentive, supportive, and responsive.

The provider followed a safe recruitment process and carried out checks before employing staff. This included confirming their right to work in the UK, obtaining references from previous employers, and completing criminal record checks.

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 premises were clean and free from unpleasant odours, which was confirmed by relatives and health professionals.

Cleaning schedules were followed to ensure all areas were cleaned regularly, including deep cleaning. Staff had access to personal protective equipment, such as aprons and gloves, when providing personal care.

The laundry area, although small, was clean and well organised. Laundry was separated into different coloured bags to reduce the risk of cross infection.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Staff responsible for administering medicines had the appropriate training and competency checks.

Medicines were stored safely and securely, including medicines requiring extra security and topical creams. The clinical room was also secure, clean, and tidy. There were arrangements for the safe ordering and disposal of medicines. A professional said, “From what we see, the team handles medicines safely and responsibly. Orders are generally well managed, and any issues are picked up and resolved without delay”.

The registered manager and staff were working closely with the GPs and pharmacist to make sure medicines were always available and managed appropriately. We identified one person had not received their prescribed medicines for several days. The registered manager provided evidence staff had followed this up with the surgery and pharmacy on multiple occasions. The issue was resolved during the assessment site visit.