Parc Vro 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 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.

When accidents or incidents occurred, they were promptly investigated by the registered manager to identify areas of learning or possible improvement. Following an incident, the manager conducted a review of staffing levels . Overnight staffing levels had increased following this review to minimise the risk of similar incidents occurring. The registered manager commented, “I do sleep better knowing there are 2 staff on at night after what happened”.

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.

People’s needs were normally assessed and identified before they moved in. The registered manager visited people at home or in hospital to complete these assessments and gather information from any previous care providers. Where this was not possible, the manager assessed people’s needs immediately on their arrival at the service. Both the deputy manager and registered manager had worked late into the evening on the night before our assessment to identify and document the needs of a person who they had been unable to visit and assess before their arrival. This ensured staff had access to appropriate guidance on how to support this person through their first night at the service.

The service worked collaboratively with healthcare professionals to ensure people’s needs were understood and met. Where professionals provided advice on the management of specific conditions or risks, this information was included in the person’s care plan and acted upon. Professionals’ comments included, “They work well with healthcare professionals, keeping good communication and sharing important information quickly” and “From a communication and collaboration perspective we have a good working relationship with Parc Vro”.

The provider did not always work well with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that. They did not always concentrate on ensuring people’s rights and freedoms were protected. However, staff ensured people were protected from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They consistently acted in people’s best interests and ensured people’s freedoms were not inappropriately restricted. However, the registered manager had not always promptly completed necessary assessments of people’s capacity to make specific decisions. Following feedback prompt action was taken by the registered manager and necessary applications made for the authorisation of potentially restrictive care plans.

People were relaxed and happy at Park Vro, they told us, “It’s great here” and “They look after me perfectly, I count myself lucky”. Relatives were confident people were safe and said, “[My relative] is well looked after. The staff are absolutely brilliant. They care”.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities for ensuring people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Information was available detailing how safety concerns should be reported and staff were confident any issues they reported to managers would be fully investigated. Staff said, “If I saw something I’d go to my senior and speak to my manager about it. I’d keep an eye on the person as well”, “If I witnessed an incident of abuse, I would tell my manager and follow safeguarding protocols” and “Yes people are safe. We all love them as if they were our own”.

The service had made a prompt and appropriate safeguarding referral in response to a recent incident, and professionals told us, “I have never had any concerns in the quality of care that residents receive there”.

The provider had suitable systems to ensure people were protected from financial abuse. Managers ensured people’s access to finances did not limit their opportunities to engage with activities.

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.

People were supported to safely mobilise around the service and staff ensured people’s dignity was preserved while providing support with transfers. Risks associated with the physical environment of the service had been identified and mitigated by the registered manager.

Risks associated with people’s specific needs were identified and assessed in their care plans and staff were given clear guidance on how to mitigate and manage these risks. Staff told us they were able to access this information when required and commented, “The care plans are on the phones as well” and “The system is quite simple once you get used to it. Most things you can see from the phone, but you can get a paper copy if needed”.

Where specific risks were identified by managers, staff had received additional training, so they were confident meeting people’s needs. One staff member told us, “I have been trained in dementia care and catheter care training so I can care for some of our residents with these specific needs. I am confident on these areas”.

The service’s kitchen was clean, well maintained and all kitchen staff had completed necessary training to ensure food hygiene risks were identified and mitigated. Risks associated with people’s dietary and fluid intake had also been mitigated.

Where risks were identified in relation to individual staff practices, these issues were fully investigated. Additional support or training was provided for staff where appropriate. When necessary, disciplinary action had been taken to ensure people’s safety.

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 service was clean and well maintained. Areas of damaged and worn flooring in communal areas had been identified by audits and plans developed to make the necessary repairs. We identified an area in a bathroom where the covering of a hot water pipe had been damaged, exposing people to risk. The registered manager immediately addressed this issue, and repairs were completed during the inspection.

All necessary checks of the service’s utilities, firefighting and lifting equipment had been completed by appropriately skilled contractors. Fire drills and tests were completed regularly and the registered manager had engaged proactively with the Fire and Rescue service for advice.

The service had appropriate business continuity plans and personal emergency evacuation plans had been developed detailing the support each person would need in the event of an emergency. Staff and managers lived close to the service and had responded promptly to provide additional support to night staff during a recent incident.

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.

The service was fully staffed and rotas showed planned staffing levels were normally achieved. People said they were well supported by the staff team and commented, “They are a good crowd, they come when I need them” and “I think there is enough staff.” Relatives were confident people were well cared for and told us, “The staff are brilliant” and “I think they are really good, I can't find a fault with anything.” Staff told us they had enough time to care for people and their comments included, “I think there is enough staff”.

The service’s recruitment practices were safe. All necessary checks were completed to ensure potential staff were suitable for employment in the care sector.

Once appointed, all staff completed the Care Certificate which is designed to provide staff with an understanding of current best practice. The registered manager told us, “The induction is the Care Certificate, and we say everyone then does the level 2 [diploma]. We hope staff realise the training is not that bad and will then progress to level 3.” Staff completed supernumerary induction shifts before providing care independently. Professionals told us, “Staff are skilled, caring, and take time to get to know the residents well”.

Staff training was regularly updated and the provider ensured all staff had the skills necessary to meet people’s needs. Managers encouraged and supported staff to access additional training in areas they were interested in. Staff confirmed they were encouraged to develop their skills and knowledge. Staff comments included, “There is quite a lot of training that we have to do. Most have to be renewed once a year”, “Me and another girl are in college at the moment, doing a 12 week clinical skills course at Truro. We are learning new skills” and “I have done a lot more training here than ever before. I’ve done online before at other places, but here the training is a mix of both face to face and online. We are free to ask for more training in anything we like. I have done specialist training in dementia and end of life care”.

Staff were well supported by their managers and records showed all staff received regular supervision. Staff told us, “My supervisions are good quality and happen every three months”.

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.

The service was clean and cleaning schedules were available to ensure all areas of the service were regularly cleaned. Staff understood their responsibilities for managing and mitigating infection control risks and used personal protective equipment appropriately when required.

Managers had engaged proactively with health professional for advice and guidance on how manage infection control risks associated with prompting people’s independence. The guidance received had been acted upon, promoting the persons wellbeing.

A bathroom in 1 area, was only being used by 1 person and fabric bathmats were used to make the room feel more homely for this person. The registered manager recognised the use of bathmats in communal spaces represented an infection control risk and their use would be discontinued if another person began using this space.

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.

The provider had recently introduced a digital system for documenting Medication Administration Records (MARs). Staff understood how the system worked and told us, “There have been no significant medicines errors recently” and “We are getting there with the medicines on the phone. It is taking some time to get used to the system”. However, we identified some gaps in these records on the day of the inspection which meant it was not possible to establish people had received their medicines as prescribed. The provider recognised that some staff were having difficulties using the new system and additional training and support was planned.

Staff understood why ‘as required’ medicines were prescribed. However, the service’s system did not include clear protocols documenting how and when these medicines should be used. This meant there was a risk staff might not take a consistent approach when supporting people with these medicines.

Staff provided support with medicines kindly and with compassion. Staff who supported people with medicines received regular training updates and their competency was regularly assessed. A recently recruited staff member told us, “My medicine administration was supervised initially for 1 month”.