Strode Park House

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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

At our last inspection we found the provider was in breach of legal regulations in relation to people’s safe care and treatment, the way people’s medicines were managed safely and the skills and deployment of staff. At this inspection, enough improvements had been made, and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation.

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. Previous areas requiring improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to reporting, recording and analysing incidents and accidents.

Incidents and accidents were appropriately reported, and we saw evidence of this in peoples care plans. Senior staff members were responsible for reviewing and analysing these incidents to identify trends and implement measures to mitigate risk. Staff knew how to report incidents and accidents. Relatives’ comments included: "I like that they proactively inform us about any mistakes like medication and go to the GP for advice.” and "For us everything is working well, but if things crop up now and then, they take action and that’s great."

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. Previous areas requiring improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to pre-admission assessments.

Pre-assessments were carried out in person prior to people moving into the home. Pre-assessment assessments were then built on to create person-centred care plans for people. The admission process was audited and there was an admission check list, with timelines set for important information to be gathered. People were invited to visit the home for show rounds. The home had assigned a person who lives at the home to support new people when they move in, to show them around and help them familiarise themselves with the home. People had hospital passports to enable them to have smooth transition between services.

Staff told us, "We work well with professionals, our residents have complex needs and we meet them. We use the information they give us and put it in their care plans to guide staff. Relatives told us, "I can’t fault the care as I would address it if there was." Relatives also told us, "They met and discussed everything with us."

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. The management team were proactive in raising safeguarding concerns and worked with community health care professionals to safeguard people. Staff told us, they have training and had good knowledge around safeguarding and how to keep people safe. People told us, "They respect me, try and change things, and I can’t fault them. There was a safeguarding, but they’ve taken on board all we discussed and are trying." Relatives told us, "They are well looked after and safe."

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.

Previous areas requiring improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to identifying and recording risks. The home identified potential risks to people. For example, for people at risk of skin damage, which were recorded in their care plans. Specific training took place to ensure staff had the knowledge and understanding to enable them to reduce risks and keep people safe. Staff completed competency checks which were monitored and reviewed. Mattress checks and audits were carried out. Bed rails and bed rail bumpers were in place for people who needed them, and these were appropriately risk assessed.

The registered manager told us how there was assigned leads to assess risks for people. For example, risk assessments for people with health and medical needs were carried out by clinical members of staff. A relative told us their loved one had an infection and needed to go to hospital, but did not want to. The staff and family member worked together to ensure that the person received the medical support they needed.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Previous areas requiring improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to repairs and improvements to the environment. The home was well maintained. There was an action plan for improvements to be carried out with time frames. For example, redecorating was underway and funding for the roof repairs had been secured. The maintenance team did regular walk arounds to check the environment and identify any areas that required work. Room checks were now in place and audited. Equipment was well maintained and checked to ensure it was safe. People had personal emergency evacuation plans in the event of a fire. Staff received fire training and knew what to do in the event of a fire. The fire brigade carried out routine fire evacuation checks.

Relatives told us, "[Name] room looks good yes and the rest of it (the house). I don’t really see anything that’s not looking right so I can’t comment. I’ve seen the corridors and the dining room could do with a coat of paint, but the care itself is what matters.”

Relatives also told us, "Resident’s rooms are well maintained and they fix anything that needs it."

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.

Previous areas requiring improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to safe and effective staffing, and the deployment of staff to ensure people’s health and care needs were met. We saw staff supporting people in a timely manner. Call bells were responded to promptly. The home had recently changed the deployment of staff. There were now separate residential and nursing settings. This gave the home better oversight of people’s complex nursing needs. Staff told us there was enough training, and they have regular hoist and moving handling training. One member of staff said, "There are enough staff except if there is sickness, but then they use agency." Another staff member told us, "I am 30 days into a 60-day induction period. Receiving lots of training." A further member of staff added, "Yes we have training very often."

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. Previous areas requiring improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to infection prevention control (IPC), auditing and staff knowledge around IPC. Staff had completed IPC training. Staff were seen to be using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Regular cleaning was taking place. There was a housekeeping and IPC action plan in place. There were regular IPC audits carried out. The home was clean and well maintained. Relatives told us, "There is more cleanliness in her room as I spoke to the housekeeping lead and it’s always lovely and clean." Another relative told us, " There’s always a cleaner there sterilising the floor."

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. Previous areas requiring improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to medicines being managed safely.

People now received their medicines safely and as prescribed. There were processes in place to record and report medicine errors. Records showed an understanding of why errors had occurred and included how learning from these was applied and improvements to practice embedded. Medicines were stored and disposed of safely and securely and in line with legal requirements. People’s medicine care plans included information specific to them including allergies and other medical conditions to be aware of. Specific medicines and administration requiring additional considerations such as a percutaneous endoscopic gastronomy [PEG], diabetic or anticoagulant medicines had detailed care plans in place. Care plans were reviewed regularly. People were safely prescribed and administered PRN (when required) medicines for distress and agitation.

People had their medicines reviewed regularly by the GP at weekly GP visits. The home had a good relationship with the pharmacy who supported them with clinical advice and ensuring medicines were supplied in a timely way.

Staff had received robust medicines training and competency assessments to ensure they were confident and competent to administer medicines. This included more complex tasks such as insulin administration and medicine administered via a PEG.

Medicines prescribed for when required use [PRN], such as for distress and agitation, were administered appropriately and the reason for administration recorded.

The home had worked closely with other health care professionals including GPs and the Home Enteral Nutrition Team [HEN] to ensure people received their medicines safely and received regular reviews.

There were regular audits in place. An in-depth action place had been completed since the last inspection, and all areas concerns had been addressed. Improvements in the home were evidenced.