The Devonshire Also known as 1- 3883899011

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

There were enough staff on each shift to keep people safe and meet their needs. Staff had been retrained in areas including moving and handling and dementia to ensure they could keep people safe and meet their individual needs. There was evidence that learning was taken from incidents and adverse events. Accidents and incidents were investigated and learning shared with the staff team. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse or poor practice. Risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed and mitigated. Improvements were being made to ensure people lived in a safe, clean environment. People received their medicines in a safe way and as prescribed. There were systems in place to ensure people were protected against the risk of infection.

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.

Relatives told us prompt action had been taken following incidents to minimise the risk of harm to their family members. One relative said, “When [family member] had a fall, they supplied a sensor mat by [family member’s] bed and lowered the bed; they acted very quickly.”

Staff told us senior staff and managers had instilled a no-blame culture which encouraged learning from adverse events. One member of staff said, “We are encouraged to instantly report any possible accident or incidents. Learning is shared within a unit. It is discussed in handover or a separate meeting. This is to discuss how to avoid recurrence; there is no blame game from the managers.”

The management team organised a range of meetings and learning opportunities for staff. Records of these showed that learning took place from incidents and was shared with staff.

People said they felt safe at the home and when staff provided their care. People told us they knew who to speak to if they had concerns about how they were being treated.

Staff understood their responsibilities in protecting people from the risk of abuse or poor treatment. They told us they knew how to recognise signs of abuse and report any concerns they had. One member of staff said, “The residents are safe from harm here. The staff really care about people. I would know if a member of staff was being unkind and for sure I would report it to my manager.” Another member of staff told us, “It is important to observe any signs of abuse – scratches or bruising, or if a person is scared or anxious. I have not had to report anything, but I understand the process.”

Staff supported people in a safe way. Information about safeguarding people and how to report concerns was on display.

There were suitable procedures for dealing with allegations of abuse or safeguarding enquiries. The provider had worked with the local authority to investigate when safeguarding concerns were raised and taken action to protect people where necessary.

Relatives told us their family members were supported by staff to manage any risks, for example in relation to mobility or falls. One relative said, “[Family member] is very safe there. They are aware of [family member’s] mobility issues, and they are always around to get [family member] a wheelchair or a walker with a seat; they are aware [family member] needs it. At night [family member] has a floor mat alarm.” Relatives told us staff supported people to mobilise safely. One relative said, “I’ve seen them using a hoist with some of the residents; they manage that very well.”

Staff understood the importance of supporting people to take manageable risks when necessary. For example, one member of staff told us, “[Person] likes to go for walks, which could be risky as they are prone to falling, so we make sure one of us accompanies them when they are in the garden.” Staff explained how they managed risks to people on a day-to-day basis and responded to any new or emerging risk. One member of staff told us, “As carers we are always doing dynamic risk assessments in our day-to-day work. If I noticed any changes, I would record it in the daily notes and go to the senior, who would make the decision whether a risk assessment was necessary.”

We observed that staff used safe practice when supporting people with their mobility, including when using hoists and slings to transfer people.

Some of the concerns raised by in July 2024 related to staff moving and handling practice. In response to the concerns, the provider had delivered additional moving and handling training. Staff reported the training they attended had improved their skills and knowledge in this aspect of people’s care. One member of staff said, “We have been retrained [in moving and handling] and had practical sessions where we were shown. It is much improved.”

Relatives said the ongoing refurbishment work had been necessary and would improve the environment in which their family members lived. One relative told us, “There is a lot of refurbishment going on, which I do think was needed. They are doing the bathrooms and shower rooms at the moment and they are going to do all the bedrooms after that, which will be good. There are a few areas in [family member’s] room that need attention.”

Staff told us the refurbishment of the home had been needed to ensure people lived in a safe and welcoming environment. One member of staff said, "The renovation of the building was really needed. We have been waiting for this for a long time." Another member of staff told us, “It is good that the building is being changed. I think we are managing to cope with the temporary adjustments. Once the building programme is complete, I think the place will be amazing.”

We observed that improvements to the environment were ongoing at the time of our assessment.

Many of the concerns raised in July 2024 related to the environment in which people lived. The condition of décor, furniture and equipment was described as poor, and some parts of the home reportedly smelled of urine. Some communal bathrooms were not available for use as they were out of out of order. In response to the concerns, the provider had begun a major programme of renovation. This included the refurbishment of all bathrooms, which was ongoing at the time of our visits, and all the home’s bedrooms and communal areas, which was planned in the next stage of the programme. The provider had sought the advice of a healthcare professional regarding the slings used to support people and replaced these with more appropriate equipment where this was recommended.

Relatives confirmed there were enough staff available to provide people’s care. They said the home had a consistent staff team, which meant staff knew their family members well. One relative told us, “We have never had an issue with staff levels; they are very quick to respond.” Another relative said, “The staff are very consistent, most have been here ever since [family member] moved to River View.”

Staff told us there always enough staff to keep people safe. They said people received consistent care because permanent staff usually covered any vacant shifts and agency staff were rarely used. One member of staff told us, “I think the staffing levels are okay; everyone is safe.” Another member of staff said, “Very occasionally we will use agency, but most of the time we call around and someone will be available to cover.” Staff told us they had time to spend supporting people too engage with activities. One member of staff said, "The staff have got time to spend with the residents. After personal care, they will be chatting with the residents and helping the activities coordinators to do the activities." A senior member of staff explained how new staff were inducted to the home, saying,“When we get new staff, we explain everything to them. They have to do all their training before they start. Before that we show them round to meet the residents and the staff.” The senior member of staff told us about the areas in which new nurses were assessed before they were signed off as competent: “It includes everything clinical. We start from the basics; handwashing, oral care, personal care, medicines, running the unit, nurse in charge competency, syringe drivers.”

There were enough staff available during our visits to keep people safe and to meet their needs promptly.

The provider used a dependency tool to establish how many staff were needed in each area of the home. The dependency tool was reviewed on a regular basis to ensure staffing levels continued to reflect people’s needs. The provider’s recruitment procedures helped ensure staff were suitable for their roles.

People told us staff kept the home clean and tidy.

Staff told us they had received training in the prevention and control of infection and always had access to the personal protective equipment (PPE) they needed.

We observed that all areas of the home were clean and hygienic. The provider had policies and procedures in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of infection. Housekeeping staff were included on the staffing rota each day and completed cleaning checklists for all parts of the home.

Relatives told staff managed their family members’ medicines safely. They said staff took the time to ensure their family members were happy to take their medicines. One relative told us, “I am confident [family member] receives their medicines on time. It’s all computer-based so the records and information can be seen.” Another relative said, “It is always on time. Sometimes [family member] refuses to take it, but they don’t leave it, they try again a bit later.”

Staff responsible for managing medicines told us they had received appropriate training and their competencies, knowledge and skills were regularly assessed. Staff told us they worked with prescribing doctors to help make sure people received the right medicines for their needs and that these were regularly reviewed.

Medicines were stored securely and appropriately. There were suitable systems for ordering, administering, recording, and disposing of medicines. Medicines audits were carried out regularly. Records of audits demonstrated medicines were managed safely.