Goldenpark Nursing 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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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 safety culture based on openness, transparency, and a commitment to continuous learning. Staff actively listened to concerns raised by residents, relatives, and colleagues, and demonstrated a clear understanding of their duty to investigate and report safety-related events.

Relatives told us the provider informed them when their family member experienced an accident such as a fall. One relative said, “My relative has had a few falls. They always call me about it and do the best they can.”

Incidents, near misses, and safeguarding concerns were appropriately recorded and reviewed.

The registered manager maintained oversight through regular audits and trend analysis of incident reports. Emerging themes were identified and discussed during staff meetings and clinical governance reviews. This helped ensure improvements were embedded into daily practice, and staff remained informed, accountable, and engaged in maintaining a safe environment. One staff member told us, “The registered manager makes sure concerns are investigated and reported to the safeguarding team and the CQC. We are informed of the outcome, and lessons learned are discussed at team meetings.’”

The provider worked collaboratively with individuals and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, ensuring safety was consistently managed and monitored. They also promoted continuity of care, particularly when people transitioned between different services.

After people moved into the service, relatives told us they settled in well and were happy. One relative said, “My [family member] was only going to be here for two weeks, but they got a permanent placement and are a lot happier and more settled.”

Staff used risk assessments and regular reviews to ensure appropriate care planning to mitigate any identified risks.

There was a focus on continuity of care, particularly during transitions between services. For instance, individuals admitted through the Discharge to Assess (D2A) pathway were met with coordinated assessments and tailored support. Individuals discharged from hospital received a handover, prompt review by nursing staff, and collaborative input from multidisciplinary teams to ensure care packages were appropriate and safely implemented.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff showed a commitment to improving people’s lives while ensuring their rights were protected. This included safeguarding individuals from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm, and neglect.

People told us they felt safe living in the home. One person said “I feel safe. I get anxious and tearful, and they really help me with that. They reassure me.”

Concerns were shared promptly and appropriately with relevant authorities, contributing to an open and responsive safeguarding culture. All staff had received up-to-date safeguarding training and were confident in how to raise and report incidents. One staff member told us, “Making sure people and staff are safe from abuse is what really matters. It’s everyone’s responsibility. We all have a duty to speak up.”

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were submitted in a timely and appropriate manner. Best interest meetings were held where necessary, and any conditions attached to DoLS authorisations were documented within individuals care plans. The management team maintained effective oversight by recording, reviewing, and updating DoLS documentation to reflect any changes in peoples needs or circumstances.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them and support their wellbeing. For example, where people experienced emotional distress, care plans contained clear guidance for staff to follow. People told us they felt safe, one person said, “I do feel very safe here.”

We observed people were included in events and activities, and staff engaged with them in a respectful manner and dignified way. One person told us, “They [staff] always ask me to get involved in the activities. There’s always something going on. I enjoy watching but I don’t like getting involved.” There was evidence of regular activities taking place throughout the home, including individual support provided to people in their rooms.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. Equipment, facilities, and assistive technology were routinely maintained to support the safe delivery of care.

Relatives told us the home was well adapted to people’s needs. One relative said, “I have spoken to the manager about a permanent placement here. There is nothing to improve.”

Environmental risk assessments including fire safety, infection control, and general premises checks were in place and reviewed regularly. Records showed equipment and systems were tested at appropriate intervals to ensure ongoing safety and compliance.

The provider ensured staffing levels were sufficient, with a team of qualified, skilled, and experienced staff who received effective support, supervision, and ongoing development. Staff worked cohesively to deliver safe, person-centred care that met people’s individual needs.

The registered manager determined staffing levels in line with people’s individual support needs. People felt there were enough staff to meet their needs. One relative shared, “There is always plenty of staff. When my relative first came here, they wouldn’t leave their room, now they come into the lounge and join in with the activities.” Another commented, “There are always enough staff around.”

Staff received a comprehensive induction and received regular training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to support individuals effectively and safely. One staff member said, “We have a lot of training, and if we need extra support, it’s always available.”

Recruitment practices were safe and robust. The provider followed a thorough recruitment procedure that included all appropriate pre-employment checks.

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.

We observed the environment was clean, there were appropriate amounts of personal protective equipment (PPE) available, and food was stored safely. A relative said, “It is clean, and it is safe” Another relative told us “The home is spotless”.

Staff followed infection control guidelines, including the correct use of PPE during personal care. A staff member shared, “We use PPE for personal care and ensure thorough hygiene. There’s always plenty of PPE available in the home, and we receive regular training to use it properly.”

Staff received regular training in infection control, including hygiene and safe waste disposal.

Medicines were not always managed safely. Records and checks required further improvement to reduce risk. Guidance for ‘when required’ medication lacked clarity, leading to missed doses. Isolated incidents included the continued use of a topical medicine beyond its prescribed duration and unaddressed recording discrepancies, though no harm occurred. Staff failed to comply with the medicines policy, resulting in delayed, non-compliant disposal and inconsistencies in stock levels. Despite these issues, medicines requiring special storage were appropriately checked.

Staff were observed to deliver medicines safely in practice and notes often explained any stock inconsistencies. Following feedback on the day of inspection, the provider responded promptly and put additional checks in place to prevent reoccurrence and reinforce safe practices.