Park 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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. The provider was previously in breach of legal regulations in this key question. These related to safe care and treatment, premises and equipment and staffing, enough improvements had been made, and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulations.

This service scored 66 (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. People we spoke with were confident they could raise a concern if needed to and it would be listened too. Staff were aware how to record any incidents and accidents, and this was reviewed by the management team. If further investigations were required, this was completed and lessons learnt were shared with the staff team. We saw evidence of regular staff supervision to ensure positive feedback was received and any learning needs identified.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. Since the previous assessment, Park House had not had any new admissions however, the new pre-assessment form was shared with CQC which recorded peoples needs to enable a smooth transition into Park House. We saw evidence of referrals to relevant professionals when required for example, dietician and speech and language service.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. People and their relatives told us they felt safe. One relative told us, “[Person] is absolutely safe here, I can go home and not have to worry about them.” There was a safeguarding policy in place and staff were aware how to report any concerns, they were able to describe situations when referrals would be required. One staff member told us, “I would alert my manager or if I needed to, I would raise it further.” One staff member shared with us they had raised concerns previously. Staff had all received safeguarding training. The provider was reporting incidents to the local authority and CQC as required.

Risk assessments viewed did not always evidence people or their relatives were involved in devising their risk assessment. The manager informed us there was a plan in place to ensure all relatives were involved in the review of people’s care plans every 3 months. This will be assessed at our next assessment. We saw 1 person was supported to use a wheelchair, however, the strap on the footplates was not attached. We identified people were not always repositioned in line with their assessed need. This placed people at risk of skin breakdown. The manager implemented a check list within the electronic system to mitigate this risk and continued to monitor this closely. There was a handover process in place to ensure information and any risks was shared between day and night staff. Summary of people’s needs were easily accessible on the electronic system with an overview of the care and support they required.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. We identified rooms that required locking, left unlocked. We identified some pedal bins did not have working pedals and some empty soap dispensers. We raised this with the manager who informed us they would ensure this was addressed. We identified a blind in the bathroom was broken; it could only be kept open by resting on the handle on the window.

Areas within the home environment were clean and presentable. We observed the dining room to be beautifully arranged ready for mealtimes. We observed the domestic staff working hard to ensure the environment was clean. There was a detailed business continuity plan in place to ensure planning and preparation was in place should an emergency arise.

The provider made sure 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. One relative told us, “There wasn’t enough staff previously, however, there are lots more staff now.” Staff told us they were happy with the staffing levels and staff morale had improved. The provider utilised a dependency tool which ensured there was enough staff to meet the needs of people residing in Park House. Staff had completed their mandatory training; the only gaps were due to staff absences. Staff had their competencies assessed when required. Safe recruitment policies and processes were in place.

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 home to be clean and presentable. There was a detailed cleaning schedule in place and the domestic team covered 7 days a week. Areas in the home had been cleaned and flooring replaced since the previous assessment.

The provider did not always make sure medicines and treatments were safe. We identified topical creams being stored in people’s bedroom. This was discussed with the manager who immediately rectified this and ensured all creams were safely stored.

We identified one person who was receiving time sensitive medication to manage their Parkinson, was not receiving it at the correct time to ensure their symptoms were managed. This was discussed with the manager who was responsive and ensured the GP was contacted and steps were taken to rectify this.

We observed where people required their medication to be administered covertly (hidden in food or drink), the correct procedures were not in place. Although authorisation had been obtained from a pharmacist, the guidance provided lacked sufficient detail to ensure the safe administration of medicines. For example, it did not include a comprehensive list of prescribed medicines or specific instructions on how each should be given, such as whether they should be mixed with water. Additionally, some people were prescribed medicines on an 'as required' basis or with variable dose options. The protocols in place did not provide clear guidance to help staff determine the most appropriate dose when a choice was available. As a result, there was a risk people might not receive their medication consistently or at the right time.