Valley View Court

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 assessment we rated this key inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm,

This service scored 69 (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 was proactive in ensuring there was a culture of safety. There was a process in place to record accidents and incidents. Staff knew how to record accidents or incidents. These were reviewed by the registered manager and actions taken to reduce the risk of a reoccurrence. Incidents were further discussed to identify any new triggers or strategies to support people in the future. The provider had completed a piece of work to try and reduce the number of falls at the service. We reviewed the analysis which showed the number of falls had reduced over the past few months. The provider had a system in place to allow relatives and people to raise concerns and complaints if they needed to. These were recorded appropriately, investigated and outcomes provided. Where identified, learning was imbedded.

Health professionals felt there was a lack of communication between them and the team which resulted in admissions not suitable for the home. We received mixed feedback from people about why they were at Valley View Court. Partner agencies working closely with the home felt appropriate referrals were not made to external professionals upon admission in a timely manner causing a delay in care needed to meet people’s basic needs. Professionals also told us they were not confident that staff always followed their advice in relation to follow up care. There were a number of factors contributing to this but due to poor communication, it was difficult for professionals to address this with the team at Valley View Court.

There was a safeguarding policy in place and information about how to report concerns was available for staff to refer to. Staff had completed training in safeguarding. The provider had a safeguarding policy in place, we saw posters of information around the home which would help staff identify signs of abuse and what action they should take.

Safeguarding referrals were made appropriately to the local authority and action taken to prevent reoccurrence. We received no feedback from partners in relation to safeguarding.

There was a process in place to identify, manage and review risks. Appropriate measures had been put in place to mitigate further risks. Staff we spoke to were aware of people’s risk and how to support people safely. Staff we spoke to had knowledge of people they supported on a regular basis. Staff had access to people’s risk assessments on their device if they required further information about people they were not familiar with. People raised no concerns in relation to how they were supported to manage their risks. During our site visits we saw people being supported in line with their care plan and risk assessments, for example, we observed staff supporting people safely by transferring them using safe moving and handling techniques.

We found no issues with the environment which could pose a risk to people’s safety. People and relatives raised no concerns around the safety of the environment. Health and safety audits were regularly completed and had not identified any concerns with the environment. Therefore, the systems in place to monitor health and safety and the environment in the home was effective.

We were not fully assured there were always enough staff to meet people’s needs in a timely way and support people with recovering their independence. We received mixed feedback from people and staff about staffing levels. People spoke positively about the staff and their approach but felt there was not enough staff on shift. One person said, “They could do with more staff as they don’t seem to always have enough or the same ones which is a bind when you need so much care as I do as I have to keep explaining and repeating myself.” Staff did not feel there was consistency in the staffing levels and told us this impacted how people were supported. Feedback from staff included comments such as, “There’s a lot going on and there's not enough of us,” and “We get to everyone, but it takes time and we’re sometimes late to them.” People were supported by a team of visiting health professionals to recover their independent living skills. However, we received mixed feedback from health professionals about care staffing levels at the service. Some health professionals thought staff were rushed and therefore needed to do things for people, rather than supporting people to do things independently, which takes more time. Most of our observations were that there were enough staff to support people, however we observed one person had not been fully supported with their personal care as the staff member had to go and support someone else. The management team did not have a clear system in place to identify how many staff were needed to meet the needs of the people using the service.

The home was clean and hygienic with no malodour. Housekeeping staff were present and observed to be following best practice guidance in cleaning tasks. Observations of the environment, premises and equipment was positive. PPE was available and procedures were in place to reduce the risk of cross contamination.

The provider has a robust IPC policy and procedure which included cleaning schedules daily, deep cleans were completed and there was evidence these were monitored by the leadership team. This demonstrated a good oversight of infection prevention and control.

Staff at the home assessed and managed the risk of infection. Staff had completed training in infection prevention and control, we witnessed staff demonstrating a good understanding of the measures to manage and prevent the spread of infection. We observed staff maintaining good hygiene practices, ensuring that the environment was clean and accessible for residents. People also spoke positively about the environment. One person said, “It’s always very clean and seems to have everything that’s needed."

The provider was previously in breach of regulation 12 (1) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 as the provider had failed to ensure safe medicine management systems were in place. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

We found no concerns with how medicines were managed. We saw prescribed medicines were securely stored. There was a system in place to order and receive medication in a timely manner. We found stock checks were accurate and in line with the system used to support people with their medicines. Medication audits were completed regularly and where discrepancies were found, these were fully investigated. Advice was sought from the GP if there were any concerns in relation to people’s medicines.