Wey House Nursing 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 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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, where able, understood their individual risks and staff supported them to understand what they could do to keep themselves safe.

People and relatives said they felt safe at the home. Comments included, “I definitely feel safe here”, “Yes she is safe there, it is the way she acts, and she is very happy there, she loves it” and “They help him, and he is safe there, and for me, it is that I know he is safe.”

We observed staff supporting people in a safe way. People who were at risk of pressure damage or risk of falling from bed had appropriate equipment in place. Staff told us they felt any changes in people’s needs were updated and communicated to them.

A new electronic care system had been introduced, the week of our visit. A lot of work had been completed to ensure the safe transition of people’s information. Individual risk assessments were reflected in people’s support plans.

We were told, the new person of the day process being introduced would ensure individual risk assessments would be reviewed monthly, and more frequently if people’s needs changed.

The provider’s business continuity plan was in place to minimise risks should anything interrupt the service delivery.

The food standards agency had awarded the service a five-star rating.

A lot of work had been undertaken to ensure the staff team were aware of the risks of choking. This included workshops with the clinical lead and IDDSI (International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative) training. Staff said they were informed about people’s allergies, swallowing difficulties and dietary requirements.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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 no concerns about staff numbers, staff were observed being kind and courteous and taking time to gain consent.

People and relatives told us there were enough staff on duty to meet their needs and call bells were answered promptly. People’s and relative’s comments included, “Lots of staff coming and going, lots of agency but can’t think of a time when not enough staff” and “There is always someone in the admin office when I go in and there are always staff around, I think they are adequately staffed.”

Some relatives expressed concerns about the high level of agency staff used at the home. Comments included, “They have not got enough, they have a lot of agency staff. Sometimes they have the same agency staff, and they know what they are doing, and new ones who don’t know what to do” and “There is now a lot of agency staff. Agency staff do not know the residents.”

The registered manager told us they were still using agency staff when needed (mostly consistent agency staff). They confirmed the turnover of staff had slowed down and they were actively trying to recruit to roles at the home.

Recruitment processes were in place and appropriate checks had been carried out on newly recruited staff to ensure they were safe to work with people.

Staff received a 2-week induction, and the nurses received a 4-week induction to ensure they had a good understanding of people’s needs and processes. Staff received an induction when they started working at the home. One staff member told us, “They are doing a lot more in-depth inductions and probations.”

An agency worker told us, “Everyone works together here, staff are lovely, and managers are really good. They looked at my profile, I know that because they asked me some questions which they wouldn’t have known if they hadn’t read it.”

There was a process in place to ensure nurses remained registered with the NMC and able to practice (The Nursing and Midwifery Council isthe UK regulatory body for nursing and midwives.)

Staff were required to complete a range of mandatory training for their roles and specialist training to meet individual’s specific needs. The registered manager was proud of the staff training compliance at the home. Records confirmed compliance with mandatory training.

Staff confirmed they had undertaken the training required. However, they were not positive about the type of training provided. Comments included, “Lots of e- learning but would prefer classroom training” and “Training is ok, online and face to face. Learn all new equipment, all pretty much the same.”

Staff received an annual appraisal and regular supervisions.

There were processes for sharing information between staff. These included handover meetings, staff meetings and daily flash meetings, to share information and improve practice.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

On the first day of our visit, medicine management processes were not always robust. The management team had identified areas which required improvements. They met with their nurses and senior team on the day of our visit to discuss the areas which needed to improve and what they needed to do. On the second day of our visit, new processes had been implemented which were much more robust. There were new checklists in place and a process to monitor these were being completed. The staff spoken with were positive about these improvements and were working with the management team to take them forward.

Staff were observed taking time supporting people with their medicines in a kind and calm way. People and relatives raised no concerns about their medicine management. Comments included, “They give tablets regularly, I get quite a few. The nurse does that. Male and female nurses all very good”, “No problems with medications, they rang me if there was a problem” and “Medications administration is fine.”

Nurses and senior staff had received relevant training to administer medicines, and had their competency assessed. There were protocols in place for medicines prescribed ‘as required.’

Staff wore red tabards when administering medicines advising staff not to disturb them to minimise making any errors.

The provider had changed the pharmacy providing medicines to the home. The clinical lead had been working with the pharmacist to ensure appropriate arrangements for the ordering and disposal of medicines. The pharmacist was positive about the working relationship with staff at the home. They told us, “I would like to highlight that the team consistently consults with the surgery whenever there is a change in medication, ensuring that the alteration is clinically appropriate for the patient. Essentially, Wey House always prioritises the clinical perspective, which we believe is ideal for the well-being of the residents under their care.”

Regular medicines audits were completed, and where areas for improvement were identified, action was taken.