The Vale Residential 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’s relatives told us their loved ones were safe and staff kept them informed about changes in health or accidents and incidents, where appropriate. A relative recalled an incident and told us, “Staff were brilliant and called us instantly. They had everything under control.” People and those important to them were very positive about their experiences at The Vale Residential Care Home. We observed people were relaxed and there was a calm atmosphere within the home. If things went wrong, the provider was open and honest with people and their loved ones and worked to put things right and prevent them from happening again. Staff took action to seek medical support when required, and the provider made appropriate adjustments to mitigate risks to people. A relative told us. “When [loved one] fell, the manager phoned straight away, and we put a plan in place and arranged a different bed. There has never been a concern since.” People received care in line with their risk assessments and care plans. People and those important to them gave positive feedback about the staff. There were enough staff to safely support people and meet their individual needs. One person told us, “Staff are very patient.” We observed staff knew how to support people safely and in line with their care plans. Some staff training was not up to date. The manager had identified this during their auditing processes and had addressed this with staff.

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 told us they felt safe and would be able to speak to staff or the manager if they were worried or concerned. A relative told us, “We would go straight to the manager if we needed to, but I know [loved one] is 100% safe because the staff are always kind and responsive.” Throughout our visit, we observed good interactions between staff and people. Staff were compassionate, engaging and reassuring with people. It was clear that people enjoyed the company of staff and felt safe. One relative told us, “When I visit [loved one, they] can be grumpy but as soon as [loved one] sees the carer [their] face lights up.”

Staff were able to identify the different types of abuse and circumstances that amount to a safeguarding. Staff told us they knew what to do if they were concerned about abuse. They knew where to find the relevant policies and felt able to report any concerns. A member of staff told us, “I feel very confident about raising any concerns and I feel I would be taken seriously.” Another said, “The priority is to make sure the person is and feels safe, then I would go straight to the manager. I haven’t needed to do this, but I know their door is always open.” Staff were also clear about who else to report safeguarding issues to, such as notifying the local authority and CQC. Staff also told us they were confident to use the whistleblowing policy if needed. Whistleblowing is a process that allows staff to raise concerns about the service while protecting their anonymity.

There was a safeguarding policy to guide staff and the manager in the event of a safeguarding concern. All staff had completed safeguarding training. The manager followed their processes to escalate any concerns to relevant professionals and partner agencies.

Risks to people were assessed and collaboratively managed with people, their relatives, the staff team and other professionals. Care plans and risk assessments were comprehensive, and person centred. There were risk assessments in place for various aspects of people’s care such as the risk of choking, risk of falls and the risks of pressure damage to the skin and hazards. Care plans also provided guidance for staff on how best to support people if they were to become upset or distressed. Care plans and risk assessments were updated and amended regularly when people’s wishes or needs changed, and these were shared with staff. People’s care was reviewed, with people and their relatives, every month as part of the management auditing process. Staff had completed training to enable them to provide safe care that meets people’s individual needs including any specific healthcare needs.

People told us they felt supported by staff who knew them well and were aware of their medical, health and social care needs. People and their relatives told us they were involved in care planning and were asked for their views. A relative told us, “I am involved in decisions about my [loved one] and in reviewing [their] care plan every month.”

Staff supported people safely, they were kind and attentive to people. We observed staff being on hand and available to support people as needed. For example, we observed staff supporting people while eating and drinking in line with their risk assessments and care plans. We also observed equipment in use to support people's mobility needs and reduce risk of falls for people.

Staff were aware of risks associated with people’s care and knew how to support people safely. For example, the kitchen staff were aware of people’s dietary needs, such as when someone required a soft or pureed meal. People were encouraged and supported to be as independent as possible with daily tasks and activities without compromising their safety. A staff member said, “I will ask if they want me in the bathroom with them when they shower, or if they want me to wait in the next room, so they know I am there in case they suddenly need help, but I am not invading their privacy.” Staff knowledge of people's needs and preferences aligned with the information recorded in people's care records. Staff knew how to connect with people when they were upset or distressed and took an individual approach with people. A staff member told us, “I leave them and after a few minutes, because it is important to respect their wishes. I go back and reassure them…and if they still don’t want the support then I try a different approach for example a different staff member, because a new face might be better.”

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

Feedback received from people and their loved ones was, there were enough staff at the home. One relative told us, “There is always enough staff about, and illness is covered too. We visit every day.” Another said, “Nothing is too much trouble for the staff. They are never in a hurry; they take their time. Another relative said, “Everyone stops and talks to [loved one]. [Loved one] is always happy, warm, and well cared for.”

The staff reported that there were enough staff, and they had the time to provide the care people needed. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home and felt fully supported by the management team. The manager told us they staffed the service in line with their calculated staffing ratio. The manager told us that their vacancies had been filled. Agency staff were occasionally used to cover sickness but came from the same care company and was usually the same carer to support continuity of care for people in the home.

During our site-visit we observed staff were on hand throughout the day to attend to people when they needed it and staff were not rushing around, the atmosphere was calm and relaxed. When people used their call bells, staff responded to them quickly. There were plenty of staff to provide support to people at mealtimes where necessary. One person told us, “I have a good time and the food is nice.”

Staff were recruited safely. All staff were interviewed prior to a decision being made to offer a position. Staff files contained completed application forms, evidence references had been checked; ID had been verified and their right to work in the UK was also checked. Disclosure and Barring Service checks were carried out to ensure only suitable staff were employed. There were enough staff suitably deployed to meet the needs of people. There was a process in place to work out how many staff were needed based on the level of support people required. This was reviewed regularly. Rotas we reviewed showed a change in staffing levels. The manager told us staffing was increased after a period of increased accidents and incidents was identified through the governance processes. They told us they hoped increased staffing levels would reduce the number of accidents and incidents. Most staff training was up to date but there was some training that was not in date. We fed this back to the manager who told us they would address this with staff. The manager also completed competency checks to ensure staff supported people safely in relation to administering medicines and supporting people with moving and handling. Staff supervision and appraisal matrixes showed staff received regular support from management.

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.