Parkfield Grange

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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The registered manager embedded a positive culture of learning and improvement. Incidents were reviewed, with debriefs held to identify learning and share findings with staff. This helped promote safe practice and reduce the risk of similar events occurring again.

The service was open and transparent when incidents occurred. Relatives were kept informed, and safety events were managed, reported and followed up. Effective systems were in place to monitor incidents, identify trends and patterns, and use learning to drive improvements in the quality and safety of care.

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’s transitions into and out of the service were carefully planned to promote safety and continuity of care. Before admission, comprehensive assessments were completed to ensure the service could safely meet the person’s needs. This included reviewing important information such as healthcare needs, cultural preferences, advance care planning arrangements, key contacts and legal documentation. A multidisciplinary approach was used where necessary, with joint discussions taking place before admission to confirm the service was able to provide appropriate care and support. Staff received information about new admissions, and admission checklists were used to support a smooth transition and help staff get to know the person and their needs.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff 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.

Staff completed safeguarding training and demonstrated a good understanding of the signs of abuse, how to raise concerns and the escalation processes available. Clear guidance and safeguarding information were accessible to staff, supporting timely reporting and appropriate action.

People’s rights were protected through the effective application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Capacity assessments were completed where there was reason to believe a person may lack capacity to make specific decisions, and best-interest decisions considered people's wishes, feelings, beliefs and values. Relatives, representatives and advocates were involved to support decision-making. Where restrictions were necessary to keep people safe, authorisation was sought in line with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff understood their responsibilities in supporting people to make decisions and promoting their independence wherever possible.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People were involved in managing risks associated with their care and support. Staff had access to detailed risk assessments and care plans, which included guidance on identified risks and the measures required to reduce them. For people who communicated distress through their behaviour, care records included information about known triggers, behaviours of concern and strategies for supporting them safely. People and, where appropriate, their relatives were involved in discussions about risks and agreed approaches to care. Risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated to reflect changes in people's needs and circumstances.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Environmental risks were assessed and managed through regular safety checks and monitoring. Equipment used to support people was serviced and maintained in line with requirements, and any issues identified were addressed promptly. Measures were in place to reduce risks, including the appropriate use of safety equipment, clear signage and safe storage arrangements. Staff completed fire safety training, regular fire safety checks were completed, and systems were in place to monitor compliance.

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 enough staff to support people safely and respond to their needs in a timely manner. Staffing levels were planned and adjusted in line with people's dependency levels and support needs.

People and relatives provided positive feedback about staffing levels and staff competence. One relative told us, “Staff numbers were a key thing when choosing a Home, all well trained and very good.” Another relative said, “I have always witnessed enough staff,” while a further relative commented, “Enough, well trained staff I feel, they look after [person] very well.”

Safe recruitment processes were followed, including appropriate pre-employment checks before staff commenced work. New staff completed a structured induction. Records showed staff received regular training, supervision and ongoing support to carry out their roles effectively. Staff told us they had access to a good range of training, which helped them develop the skills and knowledge needed to provide safe care.

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 service maintained good standards of infection prevention and control. During the assessment, the home was observed to be clean, tidy and well maintained, supported by a dedicated housekeeping team. Cleaning schedules and records supported a consistent approach to maintaining hygiene standards, and staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce the risk of infection.

Relatives spoke positively about the cleanliness of the home. Some of their comments included, “Clean, tidy and bright room, spotless, very impressed,”, “Everywhere is clean and tidy throughout the Home”. Another relative told us, “Staff very aware of infection control, Covid jabs and PPE as necessary.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicines were managed safely, and effective systems were in place to support people to receive their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were stored securely in locked medicine cabinets across the home, with separate arrangements for the storage of controlled drugs. Controlled drugs were checked twice daily and audited weekly, and a sample review of records found these processes were being followed appropriately.

Staff completed appropriate checks when people were admitted to the service and maintained accurate records throughout their stay. Additional safeguards were in place for higher-risk medicines. For example, time-critical Parkinson’s medicines were administered within 20 minutes of the prescribed time. Medicines prescribed to be administered as required (PRN) were supported by protocols which provided guidance for staff on when medicines should be given. Relatives spoke positively about medicines management. One relative told us, “All medication is given correctly and with care, staff witness [person] taking the tablets,” and another said, “No concerns around medication, staff very vigilant in dispensing them.”