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. 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.

Staff were aware of their responsibility to report and record any concerns noted. The management team had systems in place to review any incidents to ensure appropriate action was taken to support the person.

There were safe systems and pathways in place to ensure people transitioned to the service safely. This included meeting with people and their relatives and obtaining information about their needs and how they wished to be cared for.

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.

Since registration with the CQC no safeguarding concerns had been raised. The provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place and staff understood their responsibility to safeguard people from avoidable harm.

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.

Staff assessed risks to people’s safety and developed comprehensive plans about how to mitigate those risks. Relatives told us staff worked with people to minimise risks to their safety. A relative said, “[My family member] feels very safe receiving support from the staff and trusts them.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. Assessments were undertaken to ensure a safe environment was provided for the person.

At the time of our assessment people using the service did not have any equipment in place. However, staff had received training on how to use common equipment people may need to enable them to live independently at home and minimise risks to their safety.

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.

Safe recruitment practices were in place to ensure suitable staff were employed at the service. This included checking their identity, their right to work in the UK, undertaking criminal records checks, obtaining references from previous employers and completing value-based interviews.

Staff worked on a live-in rotational basis providing 24-hour support to the person who used the service. Staff completed training courses to ensure their knowledge and skills stayed up to date. This included training the provider considered mandatory for the role as well as additional training staff were interested in or was specific to the care people received. A relative told us, “Staff definitely have the knowledge and skills to meet my [family member’s] needs.” Staff received regular supervision and annual appraisals to review their performance.

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 had received training on infection prevention and control, and appropriate policies were in place. Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce the risk of infection to themselves and those they cared for. The manager checked that staff wore PPE appropriately during their spot checks and during supervision sessions.

At the time of our assessment people did not require support with their medicines. Staff were trained in safe medicines management and safe medicines management procedures were in place should this type of support be required.