Weald Heights

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.

Staff understood their responsibility to report incidents and concerns. Staff documented accidents and incidents involving people and escalated concerns to the management team. Incidents and concerns were reviewed appropriately to identify any learning. For example, falls and accidents were analysed to identify any trends and make necessary changes to areas such as staffing, equipment or the environment.

The registered manager had oversight of recorded incidents to determine what actions were needed and whether changes to people support needed to be made. Staff had recognised when incidents had put people at potential risk of abuse and made the appropriate referrals and notifications.

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.

Staff and Leaders had a collaborative approach with people and partners to maintain safe systems of care. People’s needs were assessed thoroughly on admission, using information from health partners, people and their relatives to ensure that risks were current and known to staff when care commenced.

When a person was admitted to hospital or another service, summaries of their care and support needs were provided to ensure continuity in care. Transfer letters, medicines information, advanced life planning and consent information were included for example.

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 their relatives told us that they felt safe with the support of their carers. One person said, “Yes, I feel safe, I think that it is the carers. They are so good”. One relative said, “It is a good place. She’s safe here, they have a good crew, and they have been here a long time.”

Staff had the training and knowledge to ensure they could recognise when people may be unsafe and to identify potential signs of abuse. Staff understood processes for reporting these concerns. Information about people’s care was protected by adherence to data protection policies and consent processes.

Staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. People were protected when issues around capacity had been identified. Mental capacity assessments had been conducted and recorded to determine whether they had capacity to make specific decisions about their care. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were completed appropriately and in people’s best interests with minimal restrictions. Where people had a DoLS in place, conditions to their authorisations were being met. The registered manager held a tracker to ensure DoLS authorisations were in date, remained relevant and where conditions were imposed.

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 had been identified and assessed. These risks were person centred and ensured that care plans had the information staff needed to manage these risks safely. People were involved as much as possible in the management of risks to their care and support. Risk assessments provided detailed guidance on how staff could mitigate these. For example, people identified at risk of choking received diets appropriate to their needs. Speech and language therapists (SaLT) advice was sought and included in people’s care plans. Staff were knowledgeable of who received modified diets and at what consistency for them to eat safely. Risks of malnutrition and dehydration were supported by evidence-based tools to determine levels of risk and increased and consistent monitoring of food and fluid intake. Leadership conducted audits and quality assurance checks to ensure that staff practice remained safe.

Risks associated with the safety of the environment and equipment were identified and managed appropriately. Regular checks to ensure fire safety had been undertaken and people had personal emergency evacuation plans which informed staff of how to support people to evacuate the building in the event of an emergency.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Facilities, equipment and technology were well-maintained and there were effective maintenance arrangements to monitor the safety of the premises. Regular maintenance checks of the environment were completed, while records confirmed that equipment was serviced, and quality monitored.

People’s needs were supported by equipment, adjustments and adaptations to the premises. For example, accessible shower and bathrooms had been provided and lifts to accommodate wheelchair users. Layout, flooring and the general environment had been designed to support with flexibility and provide a safer and more personalised environment.

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 consistently recruited through an effective recruitment process that ensured they were safe to work with people. Appropriate checks had been completed prior to staff starting work which included checks through the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

New staff completed a full induction and probationary period. Training had been identified and provided to staff according to the needs of the people living at Weald Heights. These included safeguarding, Mental Capacity Act (MCA), medication, fluids and nutrition, and moving and handling.

People and relatives spoke positively about the numbers of skilled staff that supported them. One person said, “Staffing is very good. They do come quickly but it depends on time and how busy they are, but the nurse will always come and check that I’m alright. There are enough at nighttime as well. They check on me regularly.” One relative commented, “Yes, we think he is safe. Just look at the level of staff they have here. It is so good.” Another person said about the skills of their carers, “They always know how to help me.”

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 home employed a number of measures to promote good infection prevention. Housekeeping staff maintained a consistent and thorough cleaning schedule of all areas of the home. Staff received training in infection control, health and safety and food hygiene. Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) for when they carried out personal care and administering medicines. Staff conducted infection prevention control audits to ensure that processes were being adhered to.

All areas of the home were seen to be clean, tidy and smelt fresh. Bathrooms were clean, looked sanitary and had been cleaned. Housekeeping staff were seen addressing touch point areas and communal areas during the assessment. Throughout the home was clean, tidy and well maintained. Staff and residents looked well-kept with good personal hygiene.

All people we spoke with told us they felt the home was clean and staff were proactive in responding to concerns. One person said, ““It is always clean. They clean every day and often the toilet twice daily. The corridors are spotless and never smells.” Another person stated, ““It is good. There is no doubt about that. They come every day and shampoo my carpet if there is a stain.”

The provider ensured that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. People’s medicines were managed, administered and stored safely by nurses and team leaders. Staff had received training in medicines and competencies in administration were completed regularly. Medication Administration Records (MAR) showed that people received their medicines as prescribed, and these records were completed accurately. PRN protocols were in place for medicines which were prescribed on a ‘when required’ basis. Regular audits were carried out to ensure there was enough stock and that storage was appropriate.

We observed a series of medicines being administered which was completed safely and effectively. The staff member was patient and diligent to ensure that medicines were given safely and in line with people’s wishes.

People told us that they were involved in discussion and decisions around their medicines and that staff managed these well. One person said, “I have a blood thinning tablet. I always get these on time, and they tell me how much I’m having. They will get me tablets for pain if I ask. Any problems or changes with my tablets they tell me.”