Weavers 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 69 (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.

Relatives confirmed they were involved in discussion following incidents, such as falls, and felt their input was listened to. Staff gave us examples showing how learning was shared with them, through staff meetings and 1:1 meeting with their managers.

Systems were in place to ensure the registered manager investigated incidents thoroughly and used the learning from these to support staff to continually improve their practice, reduce risk and keep people safe. Records showed risk assessments had been updated following falls and showed any action required to keep people as safe as possible.

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.

One relative told us about the work the staff had done to ensure a safe transition for their family member when they moved to Weavers Care Home. The relative said, “[Person’s name] often got up at 6.00 am at [my house] and [was] eating biscuits and tea. It makes me feel they’re comfortable.” This promoted the person’s wellbeing and safety by ensuring they had opportunities to maintain their preferred lifestyle when they moved to the home.

Staff gave us examples showing how they shared information with health and social care professionals to help to ensure people received the best care possible when they needed services from other organisations. Health and social care professionals were positive about the quality of information provided to them and said staff were proactive in making referrals to them when people required their support. One health and social care professional described communication with staff at the home as good and said, “I request access to the care files prior to our reviews and I discuss the [people] health, wellbeing, care and accommodation with staff. I have not had any problems with [communication] at Weavers.” Another health and social care professional who regularly worked with the staff at the home told us communication from staff was timely and enabled them to triage any concerns staff had. This helped to ensure people’s needs were swiftly met.

Processes were in place to ensure information was obtained from people, and others involved in their care, about people’s individual needs and risks they might face. This was used to develop individualised care and risk management plans to ensure people received safe and appropriate care and support from the moment they moved into the care home. This information was made available to other health and social care professionals, where appropriate. For example, information was appropriately shared by staff at Weavers Care Home with paramedics and hospital when people wanted to receive care from other organisations such as hospitals. This included key information about people’s medicines and care needs. A process was in place to ensure staff reviewed any information shared with them by other health and social care professionals. This included information on people’s discharge from hospital back to the home. Systems were in place to ensure relevant information was communicated to staff such as through handovers between staff at the start and end of each shift.

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 felt safe, and relatives expressed confidence in the service’s ability to protect their loved ones. A relative told us, “100% my [person’s name] is safe in there.” This highlighted confidence in the service’s safeguarding approach for them.

During our visit we observed people in the lounges and over lunch to check they received care and support in a safe way. We saw friendly interactions between staff and people because people responded warmly when staff approached them. Staff understood their responsibility to report any concerns and knew how to escalate their concerns if they felt appropriate action had not been taken. One staff member told us, “[I would] go to management, I owe that resident duty of care to report it.”

Staff had completed safeguarding training and had also completed Mental Capacity Act (MCA) training and knew about Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (Dols). Relatives told us they were informed when applications had been completed where it was deemed people lacked capacity to make decisions. Systems were in place to ensure applications to deprive a person of their liberty were made in a timely way, and any conditions observed.

The registered manager worked proactively with the relevant external health and social care professionals and bodies, including the local authority when a concern was raised and took appropriate action to safeguard people from further risk when this was required.

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.

Relatives told us how they worked with the staff to manage risk, “[Staff] highlighted the behaviours, and we worked together to put things in place to manage it.” This helped to reduce the risk and provide assurance to their family member.

There was a balanced and proportionate approach to risk that supported people and respected the choices people made about their care. Where appropriate, people were encouraged to take carefully managed risks to live fulfilled, safe lives. We saw people were able to move around the home with the least amount of restrictions. Staff responded appropriately to behaviour that communicated a need, emotion or distress which demonstrated they knew the people they supported.

People’s care records contained detailed risk assessment which supported staff to meet their needs whilst minimising the risk. For example, diabetes and epilepsy risk assessments and support plans had been developed providing detailed guidelines for staff to follow when supporting individual people. Staff understood what was causing people’s distress and always took a least restrictive approach option possible. The registered manager had a proactive approach to risk balancing this with an inclusive approach to accessing activities and accessing the community.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure the equipment and facilities supported the delivery of safe care. We found some areas of safety of the premises and management of risks required improvement, to ensure people’s safety was consistently managed. For example, we found a hot radiator which was not covered, this may increase the risk of people experiencing burns. In addition, an area where combustibles were not stored appropriately, this may have presented a fire hazard. Further, some wardrobes were not affixed to walls. This may increase risk of injury to people. We told senior staff about this, who took immediate action to address it.

However, other checks were in place and working more effectively to manage the safety of the environment. These included checks on premises such as communal areas and people’s bedrooms, and other fire safety measures. These other checks helped people to stay safe as possible.

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.

People and relatives were positive about the staffing levels and skills of staff at the home. We asked one relative for their views on staffing levels. They told us the service had taken on more staff. Another relative said “Staffing levels are great, they look good to me. Always seem to be enough, I always think they have 1 more staff than they need. Everyone seems to be taken care of at some point.” Another relative said, “[We’ve] never had a problem, staffing seems fine.”

Staff confirmed there was good continuity of staff, one staff member told us, “[We Staff] work in teams, it’s fantastic, the shift runs smoothly. [Staff] know what they are doing, everything gets done.” The manager determined staffing levels according to people’s individual support needs.

The provider followed recruitment procedures to ensure all required checks were completed before staff started work at the service. Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were carried out. DBS checks provide information about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

Staff received a comprehensive induction and regular training to ensure they developed and maintained the skills and knowledge to support people effectively and safely. A staff member told us, “[There] is enough training, sometimes we feel it’s quite a lot, but we have to keep up with policies and procedure."

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They mainly detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

A relative told us, “I see the cleaner every day.” Another relative said communication about potential infectious outbreaks was done well. Staff completed infection prevention control (IPC) training as part of their induction and updated this annually. Staff told us precautionary measures were taken straight away to help to prevent the spread of infection, by ensuring enough cleaning material was available. A staff member said, “Any equipment, everything we need, we have it.” We saw staff using appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), washing their hands and cleaning areas after meals and after care took place. The home was clean and tidy and domestic staff were visible.

Staff understood the importance of food safety, including hygiene when preparing food and nutrition. Staff followed the required standards and practice, and the provider had the necessary audits in place to ensure safe practices were carried out by staff.

The provider had a (IPC) policy and procedure, in accordance with this the registered manager completed a monthly IPC audit.

However, we identified a wall in the home which had a porous service. This would make it difficult to keep hygienically clean. We discussed this with senior staff who took action to address this. The provider had already recognised some areas of the home and some furniture required replacing and had commenced progressing this prior to the inspection.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs.

Staff were not always aware of how some medicines needed to be safely administered. For example, there was an inconsistent understanding from staff about where they would be able to find manufacturer’s guidance on the safest way to administer people’s medicines.

Some medicines, which were applied directly to people’s skin via a transdermal patch, were not always correctly rotated across different areas of people’s bodies. If transdermal patches were not rotated in line with manufacturer’s instruction, people may experience skin irritations, or the transdermal patches may not be effective. Staff had an inconsistent understanding of how people’s patch medicines should be rotated safely to ensure people received the right medicines when needed. For one person, some staff told us the person’s transdermal patch needed to be rotated across 2 areas. Another staff member told us this person required their transdermal patch to be rotated across 4 different areas of the person’s body. These responses were not in line with the manufacturer’s instructions.

However, medicines were stored and disposed of safely. Stocks, balances and records showed people consistently received their medicines as prescribed and when they should take them. Protocols were in place to guide staff on the safest way to administer people’s as and when required medicines.