Valley Park 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 safeguarded from abuse and possible harm. Staff received safeguarding training and demonstrated a clear understanding about how to recognise and report abuse and poor care. The registered manager understood their responsibility to refer any safeguarding matters to the appropriate agencies. Individual risk assessments were completed for people so that identifiable risks were managed. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Safe staffing levels were in place. Staff were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. We did receive some mixed feedback from people regarding staffing levels on nights and some staff told us it would be beneficial to have an extra staff member on nights to be able to meet people’s needs in a timely way. The registered manager conducted an unannounced night visit following our inspection, and assured us adequate staff were on duty to meet peopels needs. Robust recruitment procedures in place so people were cared for by suitably qualified staff who had been assessed as safe to work with people. The home was kept clean. However, we identified some areas required attention, for example, some chair cushions and pressure relieving cushions were stained and the kitchenette required a deep clean. These were addressed following our site visit by the registered manager.

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.

People and relatives felt confident they could raise concerns, and action would be taken to address those concerns. One relative said, "If I had an issue I would go to the office, I have no concerns.”

The management shared information on how they had improved systems to ensure lessons were learnt and people were safe. They were improving systems for monitoring falls to improve outcomes for people.

Systems were in place to ensure lessons were learnt. Incidents and accidents were monitored, reviewed and actions taken to reduce risk.

People were referred to health care professionals when required, saw a GP regularly and had access to dentists, chiropodists and opticians.

The registered manager explained the service regularly reviewed people to ensure any referrals were completed to appropriate health care professionals.

Staff worked with partners we saw in care records that advice was sought and followed to provide continuity of care.

Processes were in place to enable a smooth transition between services and to reduce the impact on people.

People told us they felt safe at Valley Park Care Home and they were consistently treated with kindness, dignity and respect. This was reflected in the feedback received from relatives.

Staff were able to recognise possible signs of abuse and knew how to report such concerns promptly. There was a commitment to taking immediate action to keep people safe from abuse and neglect. This included working with partners in a collaborative way.

We observed a positive, welcoming and inclusive culture within the service. Staff responded to people's calls for assistance in a timely manner.

There were effective systems, processes and practices to make sure people were protected from abuse and neglect. The service had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Risks were identified and detailed in peoples plans of care. Risks were well managed and appropriate action taken to ensure peoples safety. People told us they felt safe with staff who understood their needs. One person said, “It is well run, they [staff] know what they are doing.”

Staff promoted people's safety and independence. People’s care plans were regularly reviewed and in response to any change in needs.

We observed staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and preferences and how to manage people's risks.

Processes were in place to manage risk. We saw risks were monitored, reviewed and evaluated to ensure peoples safety.

People were cared for in a safe environment. All safety checks were carried out. Equipment people used was maintained. People and relatives commented the home was well maintained and they felt safe.

Management told us regular checks and maintenance were carried out to ensure the environment was safe. The registered manager sent us confirmation of compliance with all safety checks. For example, gas and electrical safety.

Maintenance records were up to date and any actions addressed.

Processes were in place to detect and control any potential risks. For example, environmental safety checks were regularly carried out, ensuring any risks to staff or people were identified.

People and their relatives told us there was a calm atmosphere at the service and there was predominantly enough staff available to meet people’s needs. However, we received some mixed feedback regarding staffing levels. Some people told us there was enough staff and others felt more were needed. One person said, "They are short staffed at times, I have to wait for a shower as there are not enough staff, when I ask it can take 2 or 3 days before I get one." Another person said, "When I ring my buzzer I have to wait sometimes, and It can be half an hour. I imagine they are short of staff as they are always in a rush." The registered manager agreed to look into this, as previously they had used agency staff, but had recruited so felt this was now resolved.

Staff felt well supported in their role and received relevant training. Staff told us there were safe staffing levels at the service. Some staff did say, it would be beneficial to have an additional staff member on nights. One staff member said, “When the senior carer is busy, this leaves only one carer on the floor, which isn’t always enough.”

We observed there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. We saw during the day staff were present in communal areas and responded in a timely way when people requested support. However, we observed this was not always the case at lunch time. We saw staff could have been better deployed. Staff were not always present in the dining room to support people, the experience for some people was not positive and during our lunchtime observations people did not receive consistently safe, good quality care that met their needs.

There were safe recruitment processes in place. Systems were in place to determine safe staffing levels. Records showed that staff received training relevant to their role. Staff received the support they needed to deliver safe care. This included supervision, appraisal and support to develop.

People and relatives did not share any concerns about infection control. People told us their rooms were kept clean and the service was well maintained. One person said, “I am very happy with the cleanliness.”

Staff had completed infection control and food hygiene training.

We observed the service was predominantly clean. However, we found some areas of the service were not well maintained or kept clean. The audit tool being used did not identify some areas that required attention. Following our site visit the registered manager improved the quality assurance tool and carried out a full audit. The completed audit with actions addressed was sent to us with confirmation of when actions would be completed.

The approach to assessing and managing the risk of infection required attention. The audit tool being used had not identified some areas that needed cleaning or maintaining or change of practice. The registered manager took immediate action in response to our feedback.

Safe systems were in place to ensure people received medicines. People and their relatives confirmed staff administered their medicines safely. One person said, “They do my medication, I am kept up to date.” Relatives confirmed staff met people’s needs in regards to medicines management. One relative said, “They have just changed [relatives] tablets to liquid for now as they can’t swallow properly.”

Staff received training in safe management of medicines. Staff were competent in applying the training and guidance they received. Staff attend refresher courses at regular intervals. These sessions reaffirm their knowledge and skills and include competency checks to ensure they remain proficient.

There were processes in place to ensure staff have the knowledge and are competent to administer medicines.