Park House Residential 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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service 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. There was a learning culture in the care home. Staff were aware of procedures to follow to report and record incidents. We saw that accidents and incidents were reviewed and analysed to identify themes and trends. Feedback to the staff team was provided through team meetings and discussions.

The service 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. Information packs were available to support people who transferred between different services. We saw evidence in care plans of visits and referrals when required. Staff told us health care professionals regularly visited the service, and information was shared and reviewed to ensure people’s needs were met.

People were safeguarded from abuse. The registered manager shared concerns quickly and appropriately. The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. People told us they felt safe living at Park House Residential Home. Staff accessed safeguarding training and knew how to report unsafe practice or concerns about safety. One person told us, “I feel safe, when I pull the cord for assistance, staff always get you where you want to be.”

The registered manager worked well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Risks were identified and documented in peoples plans of care. People’s care was delivered in line with their care plans. Risks were assessed appropriately and regularly reviewed to ensure people’s care and support was recorded accurately. Relatives told us risks and any changes to health were picked up promptly. One relative said, “As a family we are very pleased by how quickly [person] is noted to be feeling, for example, recently they took unwell, and it was noticed very quickly, and they were seen to very quickly with their preferences met. Once back at Park House they have thrived, they are back to their ‘normal’ self, and they were given the option to move to an easier to access room due to a decline in their mobility.”

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Checks were carried out to monitor the safety of domestic systems including water temperatures and fire safety. However, a recent fire report identified works were required to be compliant with fire safety. We received confirmation from the registered manager that works were scheduled and would be completed by the required date.

The registered manager ensured there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. Staff told us they were supported and worked well together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. A staffing dependency tool was used. We observed staff were kind and caring. Staff were recruited safely, and pre-employment checks were completed. However, files were disorganised, and some documentation was difficult to find, this was being rectified by the registered manager at the time of our assessment. One person said, “There are enough staff on duty, they come quickly, and you can have a shower when you want.”

We found predominantly the service was maintained in a clean condition. However, we found areas that were cluttered and unable to be cleaned. The manager addressed these following our site visit. They informed us they were discussing storage with the provider to determine if an unused room could be utilised as a storeroom to prevent bathrooms becoming cluttered and inaccessible. Staff followed correct infection control procedures, and the service assessed and managed the risk of infection. There were stores of personal protective equipment (PPE) throughout the home and staff knew how to use PPE appropriately.

People received their medicines as prescribed. One person said, “I’m getting my medication I need; staff are very good at giving me my medication, I couldn’t do it on my own, I’d forget.” However, the documentation and organisation of medicines could be improved. We found poor written records, for example, carried over amount not recorded, amounts received not documented and some missing signatures. The registered manager carried out a full audit following our visit, this evidenced it was a documentation issue, we have addressed this under the well-led section. Staff were to receive additional training and support, and the registered manager introduced a new system, and weekly audits were to be carried out until it was embedded into practice.