Deer Park View Care Centre

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 service was safe, with effective processes in place to manage risks, protect people from harm, and ensure a hygienic environment. People felt safe and supported, with thorough risk assessments and safeguarding measures embedded in practice. Staff were well-trained, and safe staffing levels were maintained. Medicines were administered safely, and infection control practices were consistently followed. Lessons learned from incidents and audits were shared to drive improvements in safety and care delivery.

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 shared the experience that staff were competent, and tried to learn about them and their preferences. One person told us, “It doesn’t feel like an institution. It’s a place of care. I choose my own clothes on a daily basis. I get a choice. They don’t restrict me.”

A learning culture was promoted at the service. Staff and leaders told us that when incidents occurred, they were reviewed and analysed locally and by the provider organisation. Lessons learnt from incidents were shared with all staff to prevent recurrence and improve care and safety.

The service held a series of planned meetings at which risk, incidents and changes to people’s support needs were reviewed and acted upon. Through weekly clinical and risk meetings and monthly monitoring and lessons learnt meetings, managers were able to identify trends and shortfalls and take appropriate action.

People told us they felt safe. One person said, “I’m perfectly safe and comfortable here. It’s the best place I can be as physically, it wasn’t viable for me to continue living at home anymore.”

Staff felt confident that the process of supporting people to resettle into the service was safe, effective and person centred. One member of staff told us, “We assess before people move here. We make sure we have all the right equipment and medication. Families tell us about people’s backgrounds which is invaluable in identifying patterns of risk and also mitigating measures that have been successful. We encourage them to get involved in care plan reviews.”

Partners spoke positively about the service’s safe systems and pathways. In particular, one healthcare professional noted the improvements resulting from the implementation of a new clinical falls policy and the creation of a dementia lead within the staff team.

The provider worked closely with health and social care professionals and specialists to ensure people’s safety. This included working in partnership with palliative care specialists to ensure people’s end of life care was met in a safe and person-centred way.

The provider ensured that people transitioned safely into the service. People were supported with pre-assessments before they arrived and updated needs assessments, risk assessments and care plans once they moved in. These arrangements were again reviewed and updated 72 hours after resettlement. This meant people’s needs were continuously monitored and staff had clear and up-to-date guidance in care records detailing how to provide people’s care and support.

At provider level, regional directors and quality monitoring staff undertook audits to ensure that lessons learnt where embedded within operational practice, reflected in training and understood by staff.

People felt safe and well supported by staff they knew well. Relatives expressed confidence in the provider’s ability to protect their family members from unsafe care and support.

Staff we spoke with understood their responsibility to immediately report any concerns they had about people’s safety or treatment. Staff received training in safeguarding and were able to tell us the signs that people may be at risk of abuse.

Leaders we spoke with understood their responsibility to report all safeguarding concerns to both the local authority and the CQC and to participate with any investigations. This meant that people were protected by the provider’s transparency and appropriate multi-agency oversight.

During our inspection, we observed staff interacting with people in a manner that promoted their safety and well-being. Staff were attentive to people's needs, offering support promptly and respectfully. Discussions with staff demonstrated a clear understanding of safeguarding procedures, and they knew how to identify and report potential abuse. Safeguarding resources, such as contact information for the local authority, were prominently displayed in the staff areas. This ensured staff had access to the necessary information to act quickly if concerns arose.

The provider had safeguarding procedures in place which were regularly reviewed. Incidents were analysed by service management as well as specialist teams within the provider organisation.

Concerns were reported appropriately, and the provider participated in investigations. Following incidents and near messes plans were put in place to reduce risks and keep people safe.

People and their relatives thought that risks were well managed. One relative told us, “We feel relieved that [family member] is here – I don’t worry about them. I know they are safe. ”People’s risks were assessed and managed, enabling them to lead full lives. People, their relatives. and where required, healthcare professionals participated in people’s risk assessments.

Staff and leaders we spoke with had a clear understanding about people’s individual risks and the measures in place to reduce them. People and their relatives participated in risk assessments. One member of staff told us, “Families tell us about backgrounds which is invaluable in identifying patterns of risk and also mitigating measures that have been successful. We encourage them to get involved in care plan reviews.”

We saw people and staff discussing what they wanted to do next. Staff supported people safely and in line with their care plans. This reduced the risk of foreseeable harm, for example people falling.

The provider undertook a range of risk assessments to ensure people received safe care and support. Where required, referrals were made to specialists to assess specific risks and staff followed their guidance. For example, where people’s skin integrity was at risk, referrals were made to tissue viability nurses (TVNs). Staff followed their advice by photographing and recording risk areas, monitoring food and fluid intake, supporting regular repositioning and providing pressure relieving equipment including mattresses and cushions. This meant the risk of developing and worsening pressure sores was assessed and reduced.

Where risks were identified, actions were taken to mitigate them. For example, following an incident when one person was identified to be at risk of falling in their room, floor sensor matts were installed, and staff increased the frequency of their observational checks.

People were supported to eat safely. Staff assessed people’s swallow safety prior to admission and regularly reviewed people’s risk of choking. Where required people’s food was provided in consistencies advised by healthcare specialists. For example, some people’s food was soft and moist. The chef met with people individually to discuss their preferences and requirements. Where people presented with allergies this was documented and known by kitchen, hospitality and care staff.

People told us the care home was clean. One person said, “The cleaning is done well. They have a very efficient laundry.” Another person told us, “Everything is kept clean and tidy. They wear the protective stuff when they need to.” A relative told us, “It always looks clean here and my relative looks clean and presentable.”

Staff ensured the environment of the care home was safe. Staff explained how a range of checks were undertaken to ensure the environment was safe for care and support. For example, staff ensured window restrictors were in place to prevent falls from height and air mattresses were checked to manage people’s risk of developing pressure sores.

We observed people supported by staff in a safe environment. Hoists were appropriately used to support people to transfer safely. Within bathrooms we saw grab rails to enable people to use toilets safely and emergency cords were in place and of appropriate length to reach the floor. This meant people could reach them to summon assistance in the event of a fall. There was dementia friendly signage throughout the service which enabled people to identify rooms and their purpose.

Staff undertook frequent checks of the environment. These checks included cleanliness in people’s rooms, communal areas and the kitchen. Frequent checks of equipment were also carried out. For example, staff checked pressure relieving mattresses, sensors and hoists. Checks were recorded and audited by managers.

The service maintained a preparedness to respond to an emergency. Fire alarms were tested and evacuations of the building were rehearsed. People had individual evacuation plans in place to guide staff on the specific support they required to exit the care home in the event of a fire.

People and relatives told us that staff were kind, caring and competent. One person told us, “None of the staff here have caused me any anxiety. They are respectful and I think they have got to know me.” People shared mixed views with us regarding staffing levels. One person told us, “They do treat me with respect, but they don’t have a lot of time to chat.” another person said, “ I get the impression that they are a bit short-staffed. They do seem to know what they are doing.” Another person said, “I imagine they could always do with more staff.” However, other people told us there were enough staff, with a person telling us, “There’s always someone around”., and another saying, “They do come quickly if I use the bell.” A relative told us, “There’s not a big turnover of staff.” This meant people received their care and support from established staff who knew them well.”

Staff we spoke with said there were enough nurses and care staff available at all times to ensure people’s safety. Leaders monitored staffing levels to ensure people’s needs were met, and confirmed that staff completed their required training.

We observed staff supporting people in line with their care plans. For example, where people required the assistance of staff to transfer, this was provided. We saw staff deployed in sufficient numbers to support people with daily living tasks, activities and meals.

The provider undertook checks of prospective staff prior to their recruitment to ensure they were safe and suitable to provide care and support. New staff received induction when they started and were assigned a buddy to assist their transition into the staff team.

The provider completed a dependency tool to ensure there were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs. Staff were supported by three tiers of out of hours management who were contactable by phone to provide advice and direction.

People received their care and support from trained and supervised staff. The provider ensured that all staff were supported to have supervision meetings and appraisals and training for staff was planned, provided and monitored.

People and their relatives told us that staff followed safe and appropriate hygiene practices. One person said, “Cleanliness is all good. When doing my personal care they wear the gloves and aprons.”

Staff received training in infection prevention and control. Staff told us they followed hand hygiene protocols and wore personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately. Managers undertook audits which included monitoring the cleanliness of the service, infections when they occurred and how manual handling and personal care was provided.

The care home was clean throughout and there were no malodours. Hand sanitizing dispensers were located in bathrooms and communal areas for people, relatives, staff and visitors to use.

People were protected from the spread and risk of infection. Staff wore PPE when supporting people with their personal care to reduce the risk of spreading potentially harmful bacteria.

Kitchen staff ensured that food was safely stored, prepared and provided. Staff followed a programme of frequent cleaning in the kitchen and recorded when they had done so. These records were audited by managers. Temperature checks were carried out in the kitchen, fridge, freezer and on food prior to serving. This meant people were protected by the food safety practices followed by staff.

People told us they received their medicines as prescribed and consented to their administration. One person told us, “I’ve got no complaints about the medication.”

People’s medicines were administered with their consent by nurses and senior carers who had received medicines training. Staff told us they felt competent, confident and well trained. One member of staff told us, “Training is on-going and we have lots of spot checks, audits and observations.”

People received their medicines safely. Nurses administered medicines in line with the prescriber’s instructions and signed medicines records appropriately. Medicines were safely secured to prevent accidental and unauthorised access.