Calway House

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.

People were receiving their meals in line with guidance following their assessments with the speech and language team (SALT). The catering team had guidance in the kitchen identifying people’s specific dietary needs and knew their likes and dislikes.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and were kind and respectful.

Senior staff dished up people’s meals to ensure they had the right diet and staff confirmed that a staff member was always in the dining area during meals.

We observed people enjoying their meals in the dining area of the Sycamore unit at the home. They were supported by enough staff who had the skills required to support them safely.

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.

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

We observed staff following people’s dietary requirements on the dementia unit. They knew people well and were kind and respectful to the people they were supporting. Staff supported people to cut up their meals in a dignified manner to ensure their food was as required for them. People’s comments, when asked about their lunch, included, “Yes, it is very nice” and “It is lovely.”

Choking risk assessments, malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) and Waterlow assessments were completed for all new admissions to the home. These were being reviewed as part of the provider’s ‘Resident of the Day’ process or if the person’s needs changed. The sample we looked at had been completed appropriately and the information was reflected in people’s care plans.

The registered manager said people were assessed prior to coming to the home and staff were informed about people’s needs prior to being admitted. A daily flash meeting was held, which included the catering staff and unit leads and changes to people’s needs were discussed.

The catering team had guidance in the kitchen identifying people’s specific dietary needs. They had the ‘International dysphasia diet standardised initiative (IDDSI) chart with definitions of different levels of food and fluid consistencies to refer to.

Where people had been assessed by the Speech and Language team (SALT) their SALT plan was in the kitchen area. The catering team had access to the electronic care system, so they had up to date guidance about people’s dietary requirements. They said they were kept informed about changes and attended a daily flash meeting.

Food was labelled prior to leaving the kitchen to inform staff about what consistency or dietary requirement each dish was.

Care staff had access to the electronic care system, which identified people’s dietary needs. Senior member of staff always dished out people’s meals and directed staff accordingly. Staff confirmed that a staff member was always in the dining area during meals.

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 provider used a dependency tool to assess people’s individual requirements, and the staffing support required. Staff schedules showed these levels were met.

The registered manager undertook a walk around each day. They recognised the importance of maintaining staff levels on the units and particularly on the dementia unit due to the complexities of people’s needs.

There were processes in place for sharing information between staff. These included, a handover meeting, messaging on the provider electronic care system and daily flash meetings, to share information and improve practice.

The registered manager explained they followed a gold standards mealtime experience and staff across the home all supported mealtimes. This included some staff sitting with people with a meal. The registered manager also confirmed they sat with people at mealtimes. Staff were clear about who required additional support with their diet and were able to tell us the consistencies of diet and fluids they required.

We observed one person on a SALT plan being supported with their diet by the staff team. Staff interacted positively with the person, supported them to cut their meal up, sit in an upright position, did not rush them and followed the SALT plan. This person was unable to communicate their views about this experience but appeared relaxed with the staff member.

The provider’s mandatory training had been completed by 99.95% of the staff at Calway House was at 99.95% of all staff. The mandatory training included First aid and Dysphagia awareness and support for swallowing difficulties. Senior staff also complete level 3 emergency first aid at work which had an 85% completion rate at the home.

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.