Edgemont View Nursing 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

Relatives told us they felt people were safe at Edgemont View, and they were encouraged to understand risks that may affect them. Each person’s mental capacity had been assessed, and their decisions were respected whilst managing risks in relation to their care and treatment. Staff received the appropriate training in relation to safeguarding. The staff reported any concerns to the registered manager. They took the appropriate action when concerns or incidents were reported. This included referrals to the local authority safeguarding team. Staff were competent to safely support people with moving people and managing day to day clinical needs. Risks to people had been appropriately recorded. Clear guidance was in place for the staff to follow. People’s care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed. There were appropriate staffing levels and skill mix to make sure people received consistently safe, good quality care that was person centred. The registered manager monitored staffing levels and altered these as and when people’s needs changed. Safe recruitment processes were in place to ensure staff were suitable to work at the service.

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.

We asked people’s relatives if they felt their family member was safe living at the service. We asked if they had any concerns. They told us, “Yes, she is very safe she is monitored all the time. When she had a fall, the staff acted on it quickly and “Oh yes, she is so happy, her health and wellbeing has improved. The staff know her well, she is very safe.” Relatives felt comfortable in raising any concerns to the staff and the registered manager. They told us, “Ultimately, I would speak to the care staff, if it was in their jurisdiction, otherwise I would speak to one of the duty nurses they are both very good” and “If I had any concerns I would speak to the nurse in charge, senior carers or the managers”.

Staff were motivated to make sure people felt safe living at Edgemont View. They did not have any concerns about people’s safety. Staff had a good awareness of safeguarding; they could identify the different types of abuse and knew what to do if they had any concerns about people's safety. Information relating to safeguarding and what steps should be followed if anyone witnessed or suspected abuse was shared with staff. They had a good awareness of the Mental Capacity Act and involved people in making decisions. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities and made appropriate safeguarding referrals when there were concerns or incidents.

Any concerns or allegations of abuse were reported to the local authority safeguarding team. The registered manager maintained copies of referral forms, investigation reports and outcomes. People’s capacity to make decisions was assessed and efforts made to ensure decisions were in the individual’s best interests. Assessments were discussed with other relevant parties and outcomes recorded. When needed, appropriate legal authorisations in respect of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were in place to protect people. The manager had oversight of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations and monitored these to ensure they remained up to date and proportionate for each individual.

We received positive feedback that risks to people were managed. Comments included, “They have put a sensor mat in her room as she is mobile, they keep an eye on her”, and “He has bed rails”, and “He is hoisted, and they make sure his feet are moved and his legs and arms.” Another relative told us, “Yes, they move her regularly to prevent bed sores.”

We received positive feedback from staff about how risks to people were managed. The staff have access to people’s risk assessments. The staff told us, for example, “I can access peoples risk assessments online through the portal. They provide the information I need for each individual to help me provide appropriate care.” The staff told us they supported people to take positive risks, which had been assessed. They told us, “I support individuals to make positive risks by allowing them to receive all the information they need in order to make the decision. For example, just under two years ago a resident wanted to go on holiday. The risks to this were high due to their physical condition. With assistance from management and trained staff members, we were able to make this wish come true.”

Risks to people were managed appropriately. There were risk assessments in place for people, which covered a range of personalised tasks and the environment. Information included the steps staff should take to reduce or remove identified risks to people. Where people required additional support to mobilise or transfer safely, individual moving, and handling risk assessments were completed. For example, where people required the use of moving and handling equipment, information on the type of equipment to be used was recorded. People's care records continued to provide staff with information about risks to people and the action staff should take to reduce these. This included risks associated with weight loss and maintaining skin integrity.

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

We received positive feedback about staffing levels at the service. Comments included, "There is always staff around” and “Yes for now the staff to resident’s ratio levels are good.” Another comment included, “Yes, I am not sure of the ratio, but if she pulls the buzzer, she does not have to wait long that’s how I measure it.” We received good feedback that the service used consistent staff. Comments included, “Yes when it comes to carers, I see the same people and I know them well they are all very friendly”, and “Yes there are lots of familiar faces occasionally there will be a nurse that I don’t recognise but its perhaps because one is off sick”.

We asked the staff if they felt the service had safe staffing levels. The staff confirmed that staffing levels were consistent, and enough staff worked each shift, to help meet the needs of people. One comment included, “The nursing home is well covered with regards to staffing over each shift. The staff are committed, efficient, usually punctual, enjoy teamwork and communicate well.” Staff that worked at the service told us they had regular supervision. They told us, “Yes, I receive annual appraisals and supervisions every 6-8 weeks. I find both very supportive and I feel very listened to and valued” and “I receive regular supervisions every 6-8 weeks and I have annual appraisals. I have weekly activities meetings on a Monday with the home manager.”

There were sufficient staff on duty to provide the care and support people needed. The registered manager told us that staffing levels were determined in accordance with people's support needs. The provider used a dependency tool to identify the relevant staffing levels. They were mindful of the needs of the people they cared for and ensured they could safely meet their needs with safe staffing levels. Recruitment procedures were safe. For example, pre-employment references were obtained, and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks undertaken. Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. The staff were up to date with their mandatory training. Examples included, safeguarding, moving and handling, infection control, health, and safety. A training matrix recorded, which training each staff member had undertaken. Each staff member had regular supervision and appraisal meetings with their line manager. Staff meetings with held with the care, housekeeping and nursing staff. We reviewed a sample of staff meeting minutes that had taken place. This showed that information was shared with staff. They were able to raise any concerns and share learning.

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.