Valkyrie Lodge

People were kept safe from risk of abuse or harm. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to report any suspicions of abuse and whistle blow if they had any concerns about the quality of care. There were sufficient staff who had received training to meet peoples needs including medicines administration. There were processes in place to learn from any complaints, incidents, or accidents to support better outcomes for people. Care plans contained guidance for staff to ensure any risks were managed, however, some risk assessments required additional information such as, personal evacuation plans in the event of an emergency. Improvements to the environment were needed, specifically following recommendations from the fire service.

People received nutrition and hydration in line with their needs. People were given choice and supported by staff who knew their requirements around their eating and drinking needs. The service was working within the principles of The Mental capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. Care and support plans gave information about people’s ability to consent and anyone who had authority to act on their behalf. The service worked well with external professionals to ensure continuity of care.

People were cared for by staff who were kind and respectful and knew them well. Staff supported people to be independent and encouraged people to do as much as they could for themselves, ensuring they had choice and control over their care and support.

People received person-centred care which respected their individual needs and wishes. There was regular communication with health care professionals to ensure people’s health needs continued to be met. People were supported to feed back about their care and support on a regular basis which was acted on to drive improvements.

Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities and said they were listened to and supported in their roles. People and staff were positive about the management of the home. The provider had a range of audits in place; however, these were not always effective in identifying areas for improvement.