Vallance 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

At our last inspection, we found areas of practice that needed improvement in respect to safeguarding people. At this assessment, improvements had been made. The provider had processes in place to ensure people were protected from risk of harm and abuse. Staff knew the potential risks to people and how to report concerns. People medicines were administered safely. The provider followed recruitment policies and procedures ensuring staff were recruited safely. There were suitable numbers of trained staff to keep people safe and staff followed effective infection, prevention and control (IPC) procedures.

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.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe, supported and able to manage any risks. One person told us, "I think it is a happy home, I'm well cared for." A relative added, "They raise any issues they have with us, I don't have concerns around safety."

Staff told us of how they recognised and recorded and accidents and incidents to enable them to make changes to people's care to keep them safe.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities under the Duty of Candour. The Duty of Candour is a regulation that all providers must adhere to. Under the Duty of Candour, providers must be open and transparent, and it sets out specific guideline’s providers must follow if things go wrong with care and treatment. Staff took appropriate action following accidents and incidents to ensure people’s safety and this was recorded. We saw specific details and any follow up measures to prevent a re-occurrence were recorded. Any subsequent action was shared and analysed to look for any trends or patterns.

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.

People said they felt safe and they had no concerns around safety. One person told us, “I'm very safe, it's very good. They are very polite, I trust them." Another person said, "They take good care of me."

Staff had a good awareness of safeguarding, and could identify the different types of abuse and knew what to do if they had any concerns about people’s safety. One member of staff told us, "I know about safeguarding and whistleblowing, I'd recognise anything that wasn't right."

During our assessment we spent time observing staff interacting with people. We found staff were kind and caring and offered appropriate support. Information relating to safeguarding and what steps should be followed if anyone witnessed or suspected abuse was displayed around the service.

Systems and processes were in place to help keep people safe. The safeguarding policy was accessible, and staff were aware of the protocol to follow to keep people safe. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. 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. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provider was working in line with the Mental Capacity Act. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were detailed and had been completed in line with best practice. Where appropriate the management team had applied to the local authority for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations. Staff were aware of any conditions which required monitoring and recording as part of this process and to ensure people received care and support in line with their best interests. The registered manager told us they were passionate about making sure people were able to live their lives with minimal restrictions.

People told us they felt safe and how they could engage in positive risks. One person told us, "I'm not worried, they take good care of me." A relative added, "He [relative] is very safe, we'd always make sure of that."

Staff told us they were knowledgeable on how to keep people safe and that they encouraged people to take positive risks. One member of staff told us, “I think people are safe, I'd put a relative here.”

We observed staff carrying out safe and sensitive moving and handling procedures. People appeared safe and were encouraged to be independent.

Risks to people were assessed and mitigated. Care plans provided a person-centred approach to supporting people. Risk assessments provided guidance on effective risk management. This included risks to people’s personal safety, physical health and where behaviours had the potential to put a person or others at risk. Risk assessments were reviewed regularly to ensure staff had access to accurate information to keep people safe.

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

People told us the service had enough staff to keep people safe. One person told us, “I sometimes have to wait, but it's not that long. I'm sure there are enough staff, they are very kind.” People felt that staff were well trained and had the skills needed to keep them safe. A relative told us, "They seem to be well trained and know what they are supposed to do."

Staff told us the service had enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. A member of staff said, “We have enough staff, we're a small home, so we can always get cover.” Staff were complementary about their training, one member of staff told us, "My training was good and we can go to the manager with any questions we have."

The deployment of staff met people’s needs and kept them safe. People were supported in a timely manner and staff were present in all areas of the service. Staff appeared knowledgeable and confident in their work.

Staffing levels were assessed daily, or when the needs of people changed, to ensure people’s safety. We were told existing staff would be contacted to cover shifts in circumstances such as sickness and annual leave, and bank staff were used when required. We saw staffing assessments which supported this. The provider followed safe and effective recruitment practices. This included checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), requesting references from previous employers about their conduct in previous jobs and health checks. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Staff had received relevant training in looking after people. They were knowledgeable of relevant best practice and regulations. Systems of staff development including one to one supervision meetings and annual appraisals were in place. Staff completed an induction when they started working at the service and ‘shadowed’ experienced members of staff until they were assessed as competent to work unsupervised.

People told us the service was clean and they had no concerns around cleanliness or infection control. A relative said, "The home is always clean whenever I visit."

Staff told us they had received training in infection prevention and control (IPC). They told us that specific and routine cleaning took place at the service, and they followed appropriate IPC guidelines.

The service was clean and presentable. Routine cleaning took place, which was recorded. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available for staff, such as gloves and aprons.

Infection, prevention and control (IPC) processes were clearly documented for staff and visitors to follow. Routine IPC audits and quality monitoring practices took place.

People told us they had no concerns about their medicines. We observed a member of staff administering medicines sensitively and in an appropriate manner.

A member of staff described how they completed the medicine administration records (MAR). We saw these were accurate. They also showed us how they ensured that stock levels of medicines were accurate.

Care staff were trained in the administration of medicines. Regular auditing of medicine procedures had taken place, including checks on accurately recording administered medicines as well as temperature checks of medicines storage areas. This ensured the system for medicine administration worked effectively and any issues could be identified and addressed. Medicines were stored appropriately and securely, in line with legal requirements.