Moss View

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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. For example the registered manager had implemented new processes with regards to medicine. This was due to some medicines being out of stock and other options not being explored in a timely manner. This meant at times people had gone without their medicines, which was unsafe. We saw a robust process where medicines were now checked every day, and time scales were discussed around out of stock medicines with the pharmacy by dedicated staff. This process had a positive impact on the stock levels of medicine, and we saw no one had recently gone without a medicine.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. People had an initial assessment in place before they moved into Moss View to ensure their needs could be met. The provider had worked with local discharge teams and the local authority to ensure people were safely placed at the home.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. For example, staff told us the correct course of action to take if they suspected abuse. One staff member said, “I would have no problem reporting this to my manager, or I would call safeguarding myself.” People were not unlawfully deprived of their liberty and any conditions on Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLs) were being routinely monitored. A healthcare professional told us, “Staff have a good understanding of DoLs and everything is always completed appropriately.”

The provider now worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care which now meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them, and records now reflected this and were organised and completed fully. For example, each person had step by step guidance in place to support them with moving and handling needs, eating and drinking, and any pressure care. We did raise some risk assessments would benefit from being slightly more personalised, however risk assessments now contained enough detail to keep people safe.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. We spot checked a number of certificates and weekly checks on areas, such as the lighting and the water temperatures and saw they were being completed by a dedicated maintenance person. We spoke to the maintenance person who told us they were kept well informed by staff of any areas requiring attention, and they were always free to order whatever they needed to ensure the environment was kept safe for people.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. We observed there was enough staff to ensure people we safely taken care of. Call bells were answered promptly both days of our inspection. Staff told us they worked well together, and despite the home being ‘busy’, they always managed well. Rotas showed there was enough staff.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. The provider had scored highly on a recent infection control audit carried out by the local authority and we observed hygienic practices were taking place in the home.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. We checked people were being given their prescribed medicines safely and by staff who were qualified to do this. We saw all medicines were well managed. For people who required medicines as and when required, often referred to as PRN, they had a plan in place which detailed when they needed the medicine and what it was used for. People requiring support with creams and ointments had separate charts in place for these. Controlled drugs were safely stored.