Park Lodge Care 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

People using the service were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There was a learning culture at the service. The registered manager told us they and staff discussed incidents, accidents, safeguarding concerns and complaints after they occurred. We saw lessons learned records following these occurrences that included what happened, what was learned and what had been done to prevent similar incidents. In one case the service sought support from health professionals to support a person with their behavioural needs and staff were reminded to monitor the person.

The provider made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. The registered manager showed us individual records that people took with them when they went to hospital. These records included what happened to the person, their care needs, any behavioural issues, a record of their medicines, a ‘Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation’ record, (if appropriate) and the contact details of their GP and next of kin.

The provider had procedures in place to protect people from abuse. A person told us, “I feel perfectly safe here, there is always staff around.” The registered manager and staff had a clear understanding of safeguarding and whistle blowing procedures. Staff told us they had received training on safeguarding adults from abuse. They were knowledgeable about internal reporting processes and could describe how to escalate concerns both within the service and to external agencies if necessary.

Staff promoted people's rights and worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. People and their relatives where applicable, were consulted and supported to make choices and decisions for themselves. Mental capacity assessments were completed where required and reviewed regularly to ensure they were reflective of people’s needs and wishes. The provider had requested legal authorisations where restrictions were in place. Decisions around these were made in people’s best interests and for their safety.

There were systems and processes that protected people from avoidable harm. The provider had carried out individual risk assessments for people that were person-centred, regularly reviewed, and reflected their current needs and preferences. We saw risk assessments relating to for example falls, moving and handling, skin care, eating and drinking and diabetes. Guidelines were in place for staff to follow to support people with managing these risks. People also had individual emergency evacuation plans in place which highlighted the level of support they required to evacuate the building safely in the event of an emergency.

The design of the premises was safe and met people's needs. People had their own bedrooms which they personalised with furniture and belongings. People had equipment they needed to help keep them safe, such as wheelchairs, walking aids, and bath and shower equipment. These were regularly checked to make sure they were safe to use. The provider assessed and maintained the environment and equipment used, for example, fire alarm system, portable appliances and gas safety. Checks and audits were also carried out on window restrictors, call bells and regular fire drills were conducted.

The registered manager told us there were no restrictions placed on visitors, and we observed relatives, friends and people visiting the service freely throughout our assessment.

We observed there were enough staff deployed throughout the service to meet people’s needs when required. A person using the service told us, “There is enough staff to help me.” A relative commented, “Whenever I am here there are enough staff, and I see familiar faces too which is lovely.” The registered manager showed us a staffing rota told us they used a dependency tool to consider the number of staff needed on duty on each shift to safely meet people’s care needs. A staff member told us, “There are enough staff, staffing levels are never a problem.”

We saw a training matrix which indicated that staff had completed training in areas such as fire safety, health and safety, basic life support, infection control, medication administration, moving and handling, safeguarding adults, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We saw a supervision and appraisal matrix that confirmed that staff received regular supervision and appraisals.

The registered manager told us the service was taking part in a project run by a local hospice. The project connected specialist teams with primary healthcare providers, including care homes to improve people’s care.The project provided training on topics such as dementia, eating and drinking, diabetes management, and end-of-life support, allowing care home staff to access training and develop skills.The registered manager told us the project had helped staff to understand people’s needs and had improved how people were being supported.

Robust recruitment procedures were in place. Recruitment records included proof of identification, application forms with employment histories, employment references, occupational health and right to work in the UK checks. We saw evidence that Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks had been carried out.DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

There were systems in place to help prevent and control infections. Staff were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) when needed. We saw they wore this appropriately. Training records confirmed that all staff had received training on infection control.

The provider employed domestic staff to oversee cleaning and laundry. We observed that the service looked clean throughout. The services infection control lead told us they made sure staff wore personal protective clothing when appropriate and they washed their hands correctly. They made sure domestic staff used proper equipment such as separate mops for cleaning toilets and communal areas and that the service was kept clean. The maintenance man made sure toilets and bathrooms were stocked with soap, paper towels and bins.

People’s medicines were managed safely. Staff followed clear policies and procedures for the storage, administration, and recording of medicines, thus ensuring people received their medicines as prescribed. Regular audits and competency checks were completed with staff to maintain high standards and identify any areas for improvement promptly. Medicines administration records were accurate and up to date, and any discrepancies were investigated and resolved appropriately.

We observed a staff member administering medicines at lunch time. They took their time with people explaining what they were doing and giving people drinks with their medicines. However, we observed an instance of poor medication handling practice. We raised this with the registered manager who took immediate action to address the matter with the staff member and the whole staff team. A support and improvement planwas implemented within the service to reinforce good practice which included direct observation of medication rounds and ongoing monitoring through supervision and competency checks.