Vermuyden Care

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.

Everyone we spoke with said the team were open and honest with them if things went wrong. For instance, 1 person said, “They seem to be open and honest. No issues.” One relative said, “Oh yes. They are open and honest and nothing has gone wrong” and “There have been a couple of incidents and we were not informed by the office. Of late we have been well informed”.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and logged appropriately. Analysis was used to learn lessons and make improvements I the service and this learning was shared with the staff team.

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. People’s care needs were assessed before they used the service and w and the staff had time to get to know them.

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.

Everyone we spoke with said they felt safe with the staff. For instance, 1 person said, “Yes, I get on well with them [staff]. No concerns.” People’s relatives said, “Oh, I think so. I stand and watch how [staff] talk to [my family member] all the time. [My family member] is relaxed with them, not frightened. They are gentle” and “No concerns. Always respectful. I like to laugh and joke. I respect them. {Named staff member] is smashing”.

One person told us they had raised concerns with the service about staff not always staying for the planned length of time and they had been offered assurance that this would be addressed. We saw evidence that concerns of this nature were addressed appropriately and in a timely way by the management team.

People confirmed they had someone they trusted to talk to if they were worried or upset about something. Relatives’ comments included, “[My family member] lets me know if there are any problems” , “Yes, [my family member] is able to talk to me or [named member of the family]” and “Not bad service. Contact is easy. [A manager] is currently dealing with a safeguarding issue for us. Helpful”. Staff were aware how to raise concerns if they felt people were at risk and told us they felt confident to do so.

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.

Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed and updated to make sure they were in line with the provider’s approach and expectations. The provider was committed to continuous improvement and development of people’s care plans and risk assessments.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People were supported in their own homes. Risk assessments were in place for people, their home and any equipment they used to enable them to mobilise, receive care and maintain their independence, such as hoists. Care plans included guidance on how staff should safely use equipment.

We saw that staff helped people to manage risks and involved people in decisions about risks in their life. People and their relatives confirmed this. One person said, “When [staff] transfer me they are careful” and another person said,“[Staff] make sure there are no trip hazards”.

When discussing their family member’s safety, relatives’ comments included, “Staff lift [my family member ] out of bed and use the hoist as per regulations. There should be 2 carers. If 1 carer is late the other will wait for them”, “[Staff] talk to me all the time. I am in close proximity. The carers are very good. They work with me and [my family member]” and “I talk to the carers and they ask me questions. They do involve [my family member].”

People and their relatives confirmed staff helped keep people and their property safe. One person said, “They put the key back in the key safe and lock it.” A relative said, “Staff close doors and gates. They close cupboards and turn off lights. They are mindful this is someone else’s house.”

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. Overall, people told us staff were deployed effectively. People’s comments included, “Carers have always done their best. They get here on time” and “[Staff] are pretty much on time, maybe 5 minutes late, never an issue. There was once a crash on the road. They rang to let us know. They stay for the time, make sure the job is done.”

Most people told us care staff were kind and caring and were sufficiently well-trained to meet people's needs. For instance, 1 person said, “Yes, they have the right training.” One relative said, “I think so. They are very professional. They are very good. It’s a nice company.” Another relative told us, “In the main, yes. On a couple of occasions, we have had inexperienced carers, who were not proficient enough. This is not occurring regularly, so I did not speak to the service about it.”

One person expressed concern about the number of different staff they have had over a 3 year period. We discussed this with the registered manager who said they had tackled this issue and provided evidence of success in ensuring better consistency and reliability in people’s regular care teams.

Staff were recruited safely. The provider completed pre-employment checks such as obtaining references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. This information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

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

Staff supported people to maintain their home environment. Where possible, people using the service were empowered to participate in activities to keep their homes clean.

Staff told us they had received training in infection control and there were supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) to use when providing care and support. The provider demonstrated good practice in relation to managing infections and keeping people safe.

The provider made sure medicines were given safely and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. There were clear medicines administration policy and procedures in place and staff involved people in planning their care. Assessments were completed to determine what level of care people required with their medicines. These were repeated if people’s needs changed.

People we spoke with were happy with the support they received from staff with their medicines. One person said, “[Staff] will open the Nomad box and give me my medication. No issues with medication.” (A nomad is a pill box marked with the day and time of day medicines should be taken). A relative said, [Staff] do medication. No issues. I do the ordering. They let me know when running low. They record everything.”

One relative said staff had given some medicines to their family member at the wrong times. They told us this had been addressed by the provider, and had improved.

People had clear medicines care plans, which included details of what medicines they were prescribed, when and why. Care staff used medicine administration record charts (MARs) to record the support they provided to people and these were audited on a regular basis. Staff received training in medicines administration and had their competence was checked.