Dean Park

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 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.

Accidents and incidents were recorded on online systems. There was a system to record incidents for each person individually. This allowed staff to identify any changes in behaviour. One staff member told us, “This allows us to work well with other professionals. It is proof that incidents have increased or decreased.”

Lessons were learnt following accidents and incidents, and these were shared via the online system to the service, and the wider organisation if needed. One relative told us how their family member’s wellbeing had improved since they received support. This supported that there was a good learning culture at the service.

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 had ‘hospital passports’ to support the safe transition into a hospital setting if required. These were kept in people’s bedrooms for easy access. These contained key information about people’s needs, likes and interests, eating and drinking needs, and details of medicines people took. Staff understood this process and explained where these documents were kept. We did not receive any concerns from people or relatives in relation to transitions between services.

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.

People told us they felt safe. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding concerns and felt concerns would be acted upon appropriately; staff knew how to escalate concerns. Staff received training in safeguarding.

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. We found that staff were working in line with Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

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 had clear information in their care plans about how to manage any risks. People and their relative’s felt risks were managed safely. Staff told us they had enough information to help them support people safely.

Staff encouraged positive risk taking. For example, one person was assessed as requiring 2 members of staff to support them out in the community. Staff re-assessed this and slowly tried to reduce the direct involvement from the second staff member. The nominated individual told us, “This has increased the persons independence and provided greater opportunities for meaningful community engagement.”

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

All health and safety checks took place at the service to ensure compliance. People were encouraged to get involved in the various safety checks at their home, including vehicle audits and health and safety audits. This helped empower people.

Where health and safety checks identified concerns, we saw these had been resolved in a timely manner. We did not observe any health and safety concerns during our inspection.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. However, they made sure staff received effective support, supervision and development.

Staff told us staffing levels did not always meet people’s needs. Comments included, “Staffing levels are not that great at the moment,” and “At the moment we are struggling as there are not enough staff.” Staff told us this impacted on their wellbeing and their ability to meet people’s needs. We raised this with the nominated individual, who explained staffing levels always met the assessed standard, but at times the use of agency staff meant permanent staff felt more stretched.Staff had also been deployed from another service under the provider where the training standards were consistent. Management also supported staff to cover shifts where needed, and new staff had recently been recruited.

Staff had been recruited safely and received a range of training suitable to meet people’s needs. This included specialist training in supporting people with a learning disability. Leaders also sought staff’s knowledge in the form of competency assessments in relation to various aspects of care. Staff told us they received regular supervision. However, one staff member commented that they sometimes felt discussions in supervisions weren’t taken any further as required. We raised this with the manager for them to address.Despite all permanent staff telling us they felt staffing levels were low, we did not see any evidence of impact on people in relation to increased incidents, or lack of activity provision.

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. Cleaning schedules took place regularly to reduce the risk of infection. Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) where necessary. Staff ensured they followed safe food handling to reduce the risk of foodborne illnesses. Staff received training in infection, prevention and control. One staff member commented, “The hygiene seems like it is of good standard.”

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.

People received their medicines as prescribed. People had appropriate documents in place to enable medicines to be administered safely. This included detailed ‘when required’ protocols for medicines such as paracetamol. These protocols helped staff know when to administer and how to administer the medicines safely. There was a clear process for signing in medicines and 1 staff member had overall responsibility. This meant there was clear oversight of medicines.

Medicines were stored safely. During the inspection, one medicine was identified which had expired. Staff responded appropriately to this and investigated and reported this event. The person did not come to any harm as a result.

Staff received medicines training and had their competency checked. Staff felt medicines were managed safely and understood the processes.

Staff ensured people were not over medicated, in line with ‘Stopping the overmedicating of people with a learning disability’ initiative. This included regular reviews of people’s medicines