Vibrance - 2 - 3 Orchard Close

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

Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff had undertaken training about safeguarding adults and understood their responsibility for reporting allegations of abuse. Risk assessments set out how to protect people from harm and people were involved in developing these assessments. There were enough staff to meet people's needs and robust staff recruitment practices were in place.

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.

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.

Most of the people we spoke with told us they felt safe. A person replied, ‘yes’ when asked if they felt safe, then added, “Been good here, very lucky to have a place here.” Another person told us they felt safe because, “I’ve not been bullied or harassed. If I was, I’d file a complaint.” A person wrote on their survey, “I feel safe at Orchard Close,” while another person wrote, “The staff look after me very well.”

Staff had undertaken training about safeguarding adults and understood their responsibility to report any allegations of abuse to their manager. Staff were also aware of which people were subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Authorisation. The registered manager reported safeguarding alerts appropriately to the relevant authorities. They demonstrated their understanding of safeguarding by giving 3 examples of recent alerts they had raised.

The provider had policies and procedures in place about safeguarding people from the risk of abuse. These made clear their responsibility to report any allegations of abuse to the local authority and Care Quality Commission. Staff had undertaken training about how to safeguard people. Where people were subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation, we found the provider had taken steps to address any conditions that were attached to the authorisation.

Risk assessments were in place for people which set out the risks they faced. These covered risks including fire, choking, slips, trips and falls. People were involved in developing these. Safety issues were discussed with people during residents meetings. For example, at a recent meeting there was a discussion about being aware of street crime in the local area. Issues around maintenance and re-decorating the premises were also discussed during these meetings.

The provider had a system to manage the environment to ensure it was safe for people using the service, staff and visitors. The building was looking tired and needed updating to ensure it could be kept clean and safe. The provider had a plan in place for ongoing maintenance of the premises and was in the process of changing all fire doors to British Standard and refurbishment of bathrooms.

Staff told us they were involved in developing risk assessments and were aware of the risks individuals faced. They were able to tell us what steps to take to mitigate those risks. A member of staff told us, "I know there are risk assessments in place and I know that I do have to refer to the risk assessment for what steps I would need to take.”

People told us they were involved in developing their care plans and risk assessments. One person said they were reviewed monthly between themselves and their keyworker. Another person told us they had a meeting to discuss their care plan and risk assessment very recently.

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 registered manager told us staffing levels were sufficient, and if required, for example because of an appointment, extra staff were put on duty. Staff told us there were enough staff working at the service to meet people’s needs and that they had enough time to effectively carry out their duties. A member of staff said, “There is enough time to do everything needed, doing medication, laundry, cooking meals. We get time to sit down and spend time with people playing bingo and other games.” Another member of staff said, “I have enough time to support [people] and see to their needs. If we are busy, things happen and we might feel rushed but only on occasions. I refuse to be rushed when I'm doing medicines."

We observed care and treatment in communal areas. Staff spoke to people in a caring manner and checked they were okay at regular periods. We observed staff interacting with people during activities. People did not have to wait long for care including if they wished to have a cigarette, staff ensured they were given this in a timely manner. Staff did not appear rushed and had time to chat to people. Rotas confirmed there enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.

Most people we spoke with told us there were enough staff. They said staff supported them as they wished. For example, a person told us staff had supported them that day to attend a medical appointment. Another person told us staff were good at their jobs, because “They talk to me.” A person wrote on their survey, “When I have any problems, I always go to find staff.” However, one person told us at times there were not enough staff, and they had to wait a long time for their meal on occasions.

The provider had robust staff recruitment procedures in place. There was a policy in place to provide guidance about the recruitment of staff. Pre-employment checks were carried out on staff to check their suitability. These included employment references, proof of identification and criminal record checks.

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.

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