Carpenders 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

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 75 (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 had effective systems for recording and reporting accidents and incidents. Clear management oversight ensured actions were taken to identify learning, make improvements and respond to any changes needed. Staff understood how to raise concerns.

Managers regularly reviewed incidents and concerns to identify patterns and trends. The management team monitored actions and progress to support improvement and reduce the risk of similar incidents happening again.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.The provider worked effectively with GPs, district nurses and specialists to support people’s ongoing needs. Staff escalated concerns to senior staff and external professionals. Staff monitored changes in people’s health and communicated with professionals and families to ensure care remained appropriate. Staff used handovers and electronic care records to support communication and coordination, which helped them understand people’s needs and provide consistent care. We saw visiting professionals supporting people and providing information for care staff. We received positive feedback from professionals who worked with the service.

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.

Staff recognised safeguarding concerns promptly, recorded them appropriately and clearly documented outcomes. Staff told us they would not hesitate to raise concerns with the registered manager, and with external parties if needed. We found people and staff had access to information about how to raise safeguarding concerns.

People did not express any concerns about their care. They told us staff responded promptly when needed.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS had been applied for, where required, and was monitored to ensure they remained relevant for individuals.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks in a holistic way. Staff delivered care that was safe, supportive and responsive to people’s needs, while enabling them to continue doing the things that mattered to them. Where risks had been identified, assessments were in place and set out the actions staff needed to take to help keep people safe. These included risks linked to specialist medical equipment. Staff had the information they needed to reduce risks, and assessments were reviewed and updated when people’s needs changed.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Senior staff carried out regular audits to ensure the service and environment was safe.

The service had a cinema room, a gym that people used as part of their daily routines, and a children’s play area with toys for visiting grandchildren. Staff maintained a clean, bright and well-organised environment that was free from hazards.

There were many quiet rooms for people to sit with friends and companions and an area for private dining if family members wanted to celebrate special events.

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. Staff received a 3-month induction, delivered through a mixture of online and face-to-face training. Staff told us they felt the induction was good. Staff also received supervision and appraisal in line with the provider’s policy.

We received feedback from a high number of relatives, who all spoke positively about staff and the high quality of care provided. Relatives confirmed they felt their family members were safe. We saw that call bell answering times were regularly monitored by the registered manager, and no concerns had been identified with staffing numbers. We identified there were gaps in some staff application forms. This was brought to the attention of the registered manager, who took prompt action to ensure gaps were recorded.

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.
Staff maintained a clean, hygienic environment. The service was spotless, and we observed housekeeping staff actively cleaning throughout.
The environment was odour-free and visibly well maintained, supporting effective infection prevention and control.
 

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. However, we identified some documentation for the use of ‘as and when’ medicines lacked sufficient detail, including clear indications for use and guidance on when dose escalation was appropriate. One person had a prescription-only emergency medicine. Senior staff did not know where this medication was during the site visit. There was no evidence of harm to people, and the provider took prompt action to rectify these concerns on the day of the site visit.

People’s records demonstrated that medical histories, allergies and personal preferences were documented. Medicine rooms were secure, temperature monitoring was maintained, and medicines that needed specific storage were managed.