Grove Park

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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

Previous areas of improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to accidents and incident not being correctly recorded. People and their relatives told us they felt supported by the staff team and felt safe. One person said, “Yes, I feel safe and happy here.”

Staff provided support in a safe and calm way. Staff followed safety guidelines as required. Staff were encouraged to report incidents and staff we spoke with told us the processes they follow to record safety events.

Incidents and accidents were reported. Actions arising from incidents were transferred into care plans to inform staff how to reduce the risk of an incident happening again. Incidents were investigated and we saw examples in records.

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 of improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to communication between the service and professionals. People and their relatives said the service supported them to attend external appointments such as hospital appointments. People told us they had access to GP services. One person told us, “I have fairly regular blood pressure checks.”

Staff told us they worked well with health and social care professionals and had developed good working relationships. We spoke with health professionals who worked with the service. They said they had a good relationship with the staff. One professional said, “[Manager] has been really good since they started. They are raising issues with us and acting on our advice. We feel a lot more confident about the care here now.”
There were clear processes to ensure people’s current information was safely shared with health and social care professionals. Records showed people were reviewed by health professionals, when required. For example, records showed people were reviewed by a speech and language therapist (SALT) if staff noted swallowing concerns.

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.

Previous areas of improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to staff following safeguarding procedures and reporting incidents. People we spoke with told us they felt safe. One person told us, “I enjoy living here, I have no cause for concern.”

Staff had been trained and understood their responsibilities to keep people safe. There was a safeguarding and whistleblowing policy that gave staff clear guidance to follow in the event they needed to refer any concerns to the local authority. Referrals had been made to the local safeguarding team appropriately. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental capacity Act, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. All legal applications had been made in accordance with Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant people’s rights were fully respected. The manager kept a record of DoLS applications and authorisations, and this was regularly reviewed to make sure authorisations were current.

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 of improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to staff having access to up to date and accurate information regarding risks to people. People did not raise any concerns about being involved in the management of risk. One person told us, “I stay in bed, but staff will help me up when I want to get up.”
Potential risks to people’s health and welfare had been assessed and risk assessments had been reviewed regularly. For example, for people at risk of malnutrition or pressure damage.

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 of improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to the service being dementia friendly and accessible. People did not raise any concerns about the environment. The environment was visibly clean and well maintained. Staff were able to report any maintenance requirements. Equipment that we looked at was fit for purpose. For example, wheelchairs and moving and handling equipment were in good condition and clean.

We reviewed records of checks carried out to ensure the premises were safe. This included gas, electrical and fire safety checks. Regular checks of equipment were carried out. Personal evacuation plans were in place. These had been regularly reviewed to reflect people’s support needs in the event of needing to evacuate the building in an emergency.

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 of improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to staff deployment at the service. Overall people and relatives we spoke with did not raise any concerns about staffing levels. People told us staff responded to call bells in a timely manner. One person said, “I do have a call bell around my neck, the staff are pretty good at responding.”

During our assessment, call bells were answered in a timely manner. The service audited response times to call bell alerts to help ensure that appropriate numbers of staff were in place. Staff did not appear rushed and took their time with people. A member of staff told us, “There is enough staff and there is enough time to spend with people.”

Staff had the skills to meet people’s physical and mental health needs. Nurses told us they attended training specific to their roles, including medicines management and additional professional training relevant to their role. Safe recruitment processes were followed. There was a process in place for staff to receive regular supervision. There was oversight of staff training at manager and senior manager level.

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 of improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to personal protective equipment (PPE) usage and recording of infections. People and their relatives told us the service was clean. A relative told us, “It’s always very clean when I come to visit, they are always cleaning.” A member of staff told us, “We have the gloves and apron for personal care, we remove in that room and afterwards, we will wash hands and then come out. Sometimes we will wear a mask as well.”
We observed staff wearing aprons when supporting people with meals. We saw stocks of PPE around the building for staff to use. There were effective processes to prevent and control infection. Regular infection prevention control audits had been carried out. These included audits of the environment, equipment, and staff spot checks.

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 of improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to medicines management. People using the service did not raise any concerns about this quality statement. One person told us, “They are really good with medication, and I get it at the same time within 10 mins or so every day.”

There were systems in place to order, store, administer, record, and dispose of medicines. Staff who administered medicines had received up to date medicine training and had their competency checked. One member of staff told us, “The system is self-explanatory. We check and check again to make sure there are no errors.”