St Vincent's Nursing 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

The provider had systems to learn when things went wrong. Learning was shared with staff and there had been improvements to safety and people's care as a result of this. Medicines were managed in a safe way. There were enough staff deployed to provide safe and effective care. Staff received a range of suitable training and support to help make sure they knew how to meet people's needs. There were systems designed to safeguard people from abuse and improper treatment. Risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed and planned for. The environment was safely maintained and clean. We did not assess all the quality statements within this key question. We did not identify concerns relating to these areas which we judged as being met at our last inspection.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they felt the provider learnt when things went wrong. They explained that the provider apologised and asked for their views to help improve the service.

Staff were able to describe the process for responding to accidents, incidents and concerns. They told us these were recorded, investigated and they had discussions with managers to help them learn how to make improvements.

There were clear records to show how all adverse events had been investigated and responded to. The provider had systems to oversee all events and to identify any themes. There were clear systems to learn from these and make improvements. The provider had met with staff and provided them with training and guidance following incidents. They had made referrals to external professionals when needed. Care plans and assessments had been updated and the management team liaised with people using the service and their representatives to involve them in making the improvements.

People using the service and their relatives felt safe. They told us staff were supportive, knew them well and carried out good quality care. People said there was good security. People knew what to do if they had concerns and who to speak with.

Staff supported people in a safe way.

Staff told us they had undertaken training around safeguarding people from abuse. They knew what to do if they had safeguarding concerns and how to report these.

There were systems and procedures to safeguard people from abuse. Following concerns, the provider had worked with the local authority and other agencies to investigate these and help put in place measures to protect people. Following other concerns earlier in 2024, the provider had undertaken large scale improvements to help protect everyone from the concerns that had been identified. These included training staff, liaising with other professionals, improving reporting systems and improving care plans and record keeping. They had also reviewed their systems for communicating with relatives to make sure people felt heard and had opportunities to speak up.

People felt risks were well managed. They told us they had been consulted about their assessments and felt safe systems were in place. Some people told us they wore pendant alarms, and this helped them to feel secure because the staff were attentive and responded quickly when needed.

Staff told us they had undertaken training about safe moving and handling and how to support people in a safe way. Staff understood about how to help prevent falls and identify when people's needs changed and they were placed at risk.

We saw staff supporting people to move safely. People were supported with eating and drinking in a safe way.

The staff assessed risks to people's safety and wellbeing. They created risk management plans. These were personalised. Plans and assessments were regularly reviewed and updated when needed.

People told us they liked the environment. They said it was well designed, clean and comfortable.

Staff explained they carried out checks on the environment and equipment.

The home was set in attractive grounds with well kept gardens. The corridors and communal rooms were light, airy and ventilated. People were able to personalise their rooms. There were 4 'Wings' of accommodation. People had ensuite facilities and each Wing had a lounge and dining area. There was also a chapel and rooms for socialising, meetings and prayer.

The provider had systems for checking the environment and equipment were safe and met people's needs.

People told us there were enough staff to meet their needs and keep them safe. They explained staff came quickly when they needed help. They liked the staff and felt they had good skills.

Staff told us they were well supported. They explained they had inductions and a range of training to help them understand their roles and responsibilities.

We saw there were enough staff on duty and people received care when needed.

The provider employed nursing staff who worked with care assistants to help meet people's needs. The systems for selecting and recruiting staff were robust and included a range of checks on their suitability and competencies. Staff undertook training and had regular meetings with the management team.

People told us the environment was kept clean.

Staff explained they had undertaken training regarding infection prevention and control. They told us there was enough personal protective equipment (PPE).

We saw the environment was clean. There were allocated staff employed to keep the service clean and to manage laundry.

The provider carried out checks on infection control and cleanliness. There were suitable systems for managing laundry, waste and cleaning.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Their medicines were regularly reviewed by GPs working alongside staff. Medicines were administered in a timely way and people were happy with the support they received.

The staff and managers responsible for managing medicines understood the principle of medicines optimisation and said they helped people get medicine reviews. Staff said they were given an induction, training and were competency assessed to handle medicines safely.

Medicines were stored securely and safely. People were prescribed medicines for pain relief, rescue medicines for seizures, and medicines for constipation to be taken on a when required (PRN) basis. Guidance in the form of PRN protocols were in place to help staff give these medicines safely. The medicines administration recording system was fit for purpose and stocks of prescribed medicines were managed appropriately. The staff recorded the date of opening for liquid medicines. There was a medicine policy in place and staff were aware of this. The staff carried out regular medicine audits. They identified concerns related to medicines management and the actions that were taken to improve practice.