Parkview 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. 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 72 (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.

The registered manager promoted an open culture in which staff felt confident raising concerns and knew the process of reporting. A staff member said, “[registered manager name] has made it safer, staff can raise issues better now and she takes action.” We saw evidence incidents and accidents were being reported, investigated and appropriately escalated if needed with the registered manager completing a monthly analysis to identify trends. Lessons learned following incident investigation was shared with the wider team.

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.

When people moved between services, the provider shared information appropriately and promoted cross team working with other professionals. A professional said, “Both the registered manager and the deputy manager work holistically with patient centred care being the aim within the multi-disciplinary team context.”

The provider worked well with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives or protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The provider had a safeguarding policy in place with systems to identify and respond to concerns for people’s safety. The registered manager had raised safeguarding concerns for people and where needed submitted statutory notifications to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in line with their regulatory responsibility. Statutory notifications are legally required reports that registered providers and managers must submit when specific events, incidents, or changes occur within their service. Staff were able to describe how to identify signs of abuse and what action to take. A staff member said, “If I suspected any abuse, I would make sure the person was safe first then report my concern.” People told us they felt safe and could raise safety concerns when needed. A person said, “I feel safe here.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. People were safeguarded to ensure that they understood their rights and protected against discrimination under the MCA.

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’s individual risks were generally being identified and managed with specific risk assessments in place. We identified one instance where a new and emerging risk had not been detailed within care documents to provide staff with the guidance needed to mitigate this specific risk, however staff were able to describe people’s risks in detail including this new risk. We raised this with the registered manager who took steps to address the shortfall.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Environmental risks to people were being identified and assessed. The service was clean and free from excessive clutter whilst remaining homely. People told us they were supported to maintain their personal spaces. A person said, “Staff support me to keep my room tidy.” A process was in place for staff to raise issues with the environment which was being maintained. A staff member said, “The maintenance person fixes things, we have a book they check regularly.” We observed the general environment to be in a good state of repair.

The provider made sure recruitment processes were in place and 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 registered manager had recruited staff in line with the providers recruitment policy. Staff had received the relevant training to fulfil their roles. The provider utilised an electronic system to track and monitor team training compliance comprising of mandatory courses alongside additional face-to-face training in specific subjects. A staff member said. “I received training to do my job, the in-person ones are my favourite it helps me learn better.”

The registered manager used a dependency tool to establish safe staffing numbers within the service. People and staff told us there were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely. A person said, “I do think we have enough staff.” And a staff member said, “I do think there is enough staff to meet people needs.” We observed staff interacting with people in a warm and engaging manner using peoples preferred communication methods. A person told us, “Staff are all really good.”

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.

Infection prevention control processes in place were effective in preventing and controlling risks of infection. A cleaning schedule was in place and being followed and the environment was clean. Staff had received training in infection control and had personal protective equipment available. People were involved in cleaning their personal spaces. A person said, “Staff support me to clean my room.” A staff member said, “We have a dedicated cleaner who does a great job, different people need different levels of support to keep their bedrooms tidy, it depends on the person.”

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 processes in place for ordering, receiving, storage, and disposal of medicines. Staff received training in medication administration and were competency checked before they could administer people’s medication. A staff member said, “I give people medication, I had training and feel confident.” We observed staff administering people’s medication in line with good practice guidelines and people’s personal preference.

The registered manager had identified learning from errors and added an additional daily medication check document for staff to complete to raise oversight and provide opportunities for errors to be identified quickly. People were supported to have annual medication reviews with their GP helping ensure the medication they were taking was meeting their specific health conditions and provided opportunities for alterations to be made if needed.