Park House Rest 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 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, however some elements of this key question were Outstanding.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm, and evidence gathered as well as people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 81 (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.

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

People were protected from avoidable harm and felt safe living at the home. Relatives consistently told us their loved ones were kept safe and well supervised.

Visitors described the environment as secure and well managed. Doors were locked and answered promptly, and all visitors were expected to sign in and out using an electronic system.

Visitors arrived regularly and all were greeted promptly. This was helped by the front door being visible from and adjacent to the lounge area which was always staffed. People said they enjoyed being able to see who was coming and going, helping them feel part of the community.

A relative commented:

“The doors are always locked… All visitors… sign in and out.”

Evidence from CQC notifications was consistent with safeguarding practices in the home; incident recording and lessons learned information was used across the team to improve care and reduce future risk. People subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had information recorded appropriately with documentation up to date. The conditions specified were met and were cross-referenced in care planning records.

The provider always worked well with people to fully understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care which fully met people’s needs and was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things they said mattered to them.

A person told us in detail about how they had arrived at the home with no mobility, but through staff encouragement and support, bringing in partner organisations for expertise, the person was able to walk again. Now the person was able to take the bus into town independently, and was becoming increasingly self-sufficient, which they said made them very happy. The person gave full credit to the staff for this, from encouragement to take those first steps to support out in the community then building the confidence to go out independently. They said they could live independently and had the means to do so but chose to remain at the home as they liked being there.

Staff had implemented comprehensive fall prevention measures for a person who became a “frequent faller,” including signage, sensors, buzzer encouragement, frequent checks, and positive support.

A relative told us:
“The staff have done everything within their control to prevent her from falling.”

When a person’s mobility declined, the home moved them downstairs to reduce risk.

Relatives also told us they felt their loved ones were safer at Park House than in previous settings:

“I feel my mum is much safer at Park House than she was at home.”

One relative struggled to think of improvements, saying they were “super impressed by Park House.”

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

The provider made sure there were always enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received thorough support, supervision and strong development opportunities. They worked together well to provide safe care which met people’s individual needs.

Staff and managers were described by people and relatives as attentive, present, and confident in managing risk. Safety was embedded in day‑to‑day practice.

A person told us: “The staff are all lovely and good at their jobs.”

A relative told us, ““The staff are amazing… kind and gentle. A credit to the home.”

A consistent piece of feedback noted was about a strong team dynamic – this came from people, relatives and staff: “The staff are a lovely team, each with their own unique qualities.”

Staffing was resourced well, with evidence from rotas and a dependency tool indicating consistency. The service had some challenging periods due to increased demand when several people were sick at the same time, but this was supported by adjusting rotas following discussions within the team as well as bringing in bank staff as a temporary measure. Staff told us this worked well and they felt included in decisions being made and planning as the management worked dynamically to ensure consistent cover.

The service had recently introduced a new daytime shift to cover the most demanding times of the day, following consultation with team members. This has created times when staff overlapped more, allowing capacity for effective handovers to take place.

Staff recruitment practices, staff files including records of training, competency reviews and supervisions were consistent and comprehensive, very well organised and clear with all necessary information. Staff told us they received a combination of in-person and online training including refresher courses periodically. Staff told us they received specific training on systems as these were co-produced between the technology provider and the home. This helped ensure good understanding, which led to an excellent use of the care recording systems by staff. This meant management were able to track care and answer queries swiftly; flag up when reviews were due and when to involve partner organisations. Office administration in relation to staffing and care tasks was very slick, with requested information available and additional evidence provided quickly.

Most of the staff had worked at the service for several years, building a good team rapport and getting to know the people living there well. Staff told us they were always involved in developing the home, with open discussions about improvement and innovation encouraged. This was supported by comments made by people living at the service and relatives. The service had a bank of staff to cover for periods of higher demand but did have a relationship with an agency in case they needed people at short notice. Staff, in some cases, had been recruited following a period working at the home as an agency worker in the past. The staff team was diverse and represented the local population well.

We observed staff during a challenging event as a person passed away on the first day of inspection. Staff were very impressive, maintaining a calm atmosphere, ensuring everyone was cared for including the family affected who spoke to us very positively about the service.

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.