Parvale 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were protected by a strong and distinctive approach to safeguarding, including positive risk-taking to maximise their control over their lives. People were fully involved, and the provider was open and transparent when things went wrong.

This service scored 78 (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. People were supported to take risks to improve their quality of life. A staff member told us that they have been encouraged to take assessed risks to try and meet people’s needs, and to “do things in different ways.” Staff meeting minutes evidenced learning from safety incidents, and staff received training in reporting events and incidents so that lessons could be learned.

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. There were detailed care and support plans in place for other services to understand people’s individual needs. We saw detailed emergency admission packs which gave important information about people if they needed to go to hospital. A local healthcare partner advised us the staff, “Very clearly care for their residents and often go above and beyond to provide support to them during hospital stays,” and, “Excellent communication with us during inpatient stays helps to facilitate fast and safe discharges.”

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. Staff and leaders had received training in safeguarding and understood their responsibilities in reporting safeguarding concerns to the appropriate agencies. A staff member told us, “I know who to contact about any safeguarding concerns and feel confident they would be dealt with.” A county council partner told us they had been contacted for additional advice when this was needed. The provider considered the online safety of people offering them support in 1-2-1 meetings if needed. Staff advised us, “We have had support from the Children’s Community Team for People with Learning Disabilities (CTPLD) team, and we also have visits if we feel they are needed from the neighbourhood Community Police Officers to support with awareness.”

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. Restrictive interventions were only ever used as a last resort and there was a clear commitment to minimising the use of restrictive interventions in the service. If staff use restrictive interventions, it was lawful, for a legitimate purpose, safe and necessary, and staff always followed best practice. We saw evidence that some restrictions had been risk assessed and removed as they were no longer needed. Other restrictions in place had been fully discussed with people who told us they understood and agreed with them. One relative told us “[Person] has as much freedom as they can and are living their best life”. We saw risk assessments were in place and people were educated and supported to stay safe when they weren’t being directly supported in the home. Staff told us, “There are risk assessments in place, and we make sure that their (peoples) mobiles are charged when out.” We saw the home also completed a clothes chart, so they knew what clothes people were wearing that day. This was important to help police and staff locate the person promptly if they did not return to the service when expected.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The physical environment met people’s sensory and physical needs and reasonable adjustments had been implemented. For example, a person who was at risk of falls had a level access shower installed to reduce risk and ensure they remained living safely at the home for as long as possible.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Staff worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Staff were recruited safely and had received training to provide safe care. One staff member told us that they required additional support for one part of their competencies training, and they had received this with no difficulties. A relative told us, “There is enough staff they always have the right ratio.” People at the service told us they felt safe and supported by the staff who cared for them. We saw communication between staff highlighting respectfully that somebody might be needing more support. This was based on their knowledge of that person and how changes in one area of their life could be affecting another. There was a consistent staff team who worked together to provide high quality care to the people they support.

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 supported people to keep their home clean but were respectful of the choices people made within their personal spaces.

The provider always made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning medicines, including when changes happened. People living at the service were extremely well supported by staff to self-administer their medicines. They wanted to complete a record of the medicines they had taken so that their support staff could check they were taking them correctly. These records were completed very accurately and could demonstrate that each person was taking their medicines as prescribed. Support staff ensured the information shown on the medicines administration records were correct before they were used and ensured people’s allergies were accurately recorded.

People’s care plans had up to date information about how to support them with their medicines. There was a person-centred approach to support people to take their ‘when required' medicines when they need them. People were encouraged to take control of their own medication. One person told us, “If staff think that something is not working with my medication then they need to chat to me so we can decide whether or not I need to see a GP.”

Staff received medicines training and were assessed as competent to provide medicines support. People’s medicines were securely stored and at an acceptable temperature and within their expiry date. As people using the service were self-administering their medicines the storage arrangements had been risk assessed to prevent inappropriate access.Governance and audit arrangements for the oversight of medicines were effective.