Palmersdene

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 69 (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. Incidents and accidents were investigated and analysed, with the findings used to make changes to prevent situations from happening again.

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. Staff had assessed people’s needs before and after they moved to Palmersdene, this information was used to determine people’s preferences and to develop care plans. A relative told us, “The care plan was discussed initially. I can ask the manager questions about it anytime.”

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. Safeguarding concerns were reported and investigated. Staff had completed safeguarding training. They knew how to identify and report potential issues and felt confident to do so. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards DoLS authorisations were in place for all relevant people. People and relatives felt the home was safe. A person told us, “I feel safe that is a benefit of being here.” Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been applied for in a timely way, and any conditions were appropriately added to people’s individual care plans.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Where risk assessments had been carried out, sufficient information was recorded to identify the measures in place to manage the risk. However, some potential risks had not been assessed, such as those relating to specific health conditions including diabetes.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The provider consistently carried out environmental risk assessments and health and safety checks, to help keep the environment safe.

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. People and relatives confirmed there were enough staff to meet people’s needs in a timely way. A relative said, “I see the same staff, I know them by name.” Staff also felt staffing levels were sufficient. A staff member said, “There is definitely enough staff, any sickness is always dealt with.”

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. Staff had been trained in IPC and followed the provider’s IPC policies. People confirmed these practices were followed consistently. A person told us, “The cleanliness is marvellous, they (staff) wear gloves when they need to.”

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Most aspects of medicines management were handled safely. However, a person had not been receiving their time critical medicines when they were due. There had been no harm caused to the person. Due to the provider’s audit process sampling records, this had not been identified proactively. The provider immediately changed their approach so that time critical medicines were checked constantly, to prevent this happening again.