Hutton Village 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

People were protected from harm and abuse. People were involved in the management of risk and risks in the environment were assessed and monitored proactively. The service had robust systems in place for infection control and prevention. Staff were appropriately trained, however, we received mixed feedback from people and relatives about staffing levels.

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.

People and relatives told us they felt safe. One person told us, “I do feel safe, I have never had a problem but would talk to the people in charge.” A relative said, “[Family member] is safe, when I leave, I know they are looked after well.”

We observed a culture which promoted safety and openness and also respected people's wishes to keep them safe.

Staff understood their responsibilities in recognising and reporting suspected harm or abuse. They told us they had completed training and knew what they should do if they thought someone was at risk of harm or they suspected abuse. One member of staff told us, “I would tell the registered manager or the Deputy manager or higher. I would look out for bruising, loss of appetite, and change of behaviour. We have a speak-up policy we can use; I would speak with the nurses. I would ring the police if I was still concerned.”

Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place. Records we looked at showed when safeguarding incidents had occurred, the manager had reported these to the relevant safeguarding authority for investigation and notified us as is required by law. This meant people were protected from the risk of harm or abuse. The deputy manager told us they shared information with staff in meetings to learn from any incidents. Information about safeguarding was displayed in the home for people, relatives, and staff to access.

Staff understood people's risks and told us they were kept up to date with changes in people's needs. Staff were clear about the protocols to follow in the event of an accident, incident, or a person becoming unwell. Staff had received training to support people safely. Staff told us they were updated about risk in handovers and meetings and guidance was available in care plans. Staff knew people well and how they wished to be supported. A staff member told us, “We know what the residents like or dislike from written assessments, talking to them, regular meetings and listening to them.”

Throughout the inspection we observed staff supporting people safely. Staff were responsive to any potential risks. We observed a person enter the lounge in an electric wheelchair and staff immediately noticed they were moving quickly and politely intercepted them to slow down their entrance so they could enter the lounge safely. We observed people being transferred safely.

The provider assessed risks to ensure people were safe. The staff took action to mitigate any identified risks. There was information in people's care plans to guide staff about how to keep people safe from harm. Risks included areas such as supporting people with mobility equipment or with personal care.

Most relatives were positive about how they and their family member were included in their care and support. A relative told us the service had consulted them regarding safety aspects of their family members care and the service had sort preventative measures to reduce the risk of their loved one from admission to hospital. They said, "The frailty ward has been involved in preventing [family member] from being admitted to hospital. They can put in 1/1 care temporarily while they are unwell, we have been very involved.” However, another relative said, “I need some clarity about what happens when I'm not there, so I have to go and ask the staff, if I didn’t ask, they wouldn’t tell me.”

Throughout the inspection we observed staff supporting people safely.

People were living in a safe, well-maintained environment. The provider employed maintenance staff to ensure the premises were well-maintained and safe. There were systems in place to ensure any maintenance needed was responded to promptly. We saw records of checks that had been carried out on equipment and the premises.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about staffing. A person told us, “I only wait about 5-10 minutes. There seems to be enough staff around, only if sickness does it feel short.” Another person said, “There are not enough staff as I have to wait quite a while. Can wait half an hour.” A relative told us, “It’s not bad – it could always be better, I’m there a lot in the day. Pretty good, some days are better than others. Sometimes you have to wait for staff and other days they can help straight away.” Relatives also commented about staff deployment and told us staff were moved around and this meant there was not always a consistent staff team within their area. A relative told us, “They do all know [family member] but they work across floors and if they stayed on the same floor, I think it might just make it better as [family member] would see the same people every day.”

The service used a dependency tool to calculate staffing and the rotas we viewed demonstrated staffing was provided using this tool. As people had commented about having to wait for staff during busy times, we viewed the call bell data and analysis completed in this area. Call bell data did not identify any significant delays in people receiving support. However, people and relatives were clear about their experiences. We discussed the feedback with the deputy manager who was keen to gain peoples views and experiences to improve peoples experience moving forward.

Staff consistently told us they felt there was enough staff to support people safely and effectively. Comments from staff included; "Yes staffing levels are correct day and night", and "Sometimes staff ring in sick so staff levels can be low, however extra staff from agency or current staff who are not on shift will be called in."

We observed that there were sufficient, experienced and trained staff deployed throughout the home during our visit. Staff responded to call bells promptly and professionally. Staff were attentive to people and responded quickly when needed. We observed staff interacting with people and offering regular activities. People appeared relaxed and comfortable in staff presence.

Staff were clearly trained and understood their responsibilities regarding infection, prevention and control. Robust systems were in place to effectively manage and assess the risks of infection.

We saw the premises and equipment were kept clean and hygienic. This meant people are protected as much as possible from the risk of infection.

Leaders discussed with us improvements they were going to make to the management of medicines moving forward. Robust plans are also underway to transition recording of medicine administration from paper format to computerised.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Staff received training about managing medicines safely and had their competency assessed. We identified some minor concerns about the reconciliation of medicines, the deputy manager followed these concerns up immediately.