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.

Any incidents were appropriately managed in line with people’s positive behaviour support plans. Staff were aware of their responsibility to report and record any concerns noted. The management team reviewed these to ensure appropriate action had been taken to support the person and others living 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.

Staff liaised with people, their relatives and their social worker to gather information about the person and how they wished to be supported prior to them moving to the service. People also had the opportunity to visit the supported living service so they could see the service, their potential room and meet the other people living there, before deciding about whether they wanted to move in.

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. This included risks at the service and in the community. Where appropriate, people had positive behaviour support plans in place which guided staff about how to support people’s individual needs. Staff were mindful of supporting people to develop skills and independence, whilst balancing any risks to their safety, for example, in relation to meal preparation. Relatives felt confident that their family members were kept safe while using the service, and that staff understood and effectively managed any risks.

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

Staff confirmed they had access to the equipment they required to meet people’s needs. One staff member said, “Yes, people have the equipment they need to stay safe and independent in their own homes. I’ve been trained to use any required equipment, and refresher training is provided.”

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.

Staffing levels were adjusted according to the needs of the people using the service. Staff worked on a live-in rotational basis providing 24-hour support to people who use the service. All staff felt there were sufficient staff on duty to enable them to adequately support people. One staff member told us, “Yes, staffing levels are appropriate for the people we support. We have the right mix of skills on shift, and additional support is arranged when people’s needs change.”

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. 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. People’s relatives confirmed the supported living settings were kept clean and hygienic and their family members were supported to develop skills, like cleaning their rooms and doing their laundry. The manager checked that staff wore PPE appropriately when they visited the service, during their spot checks and during supervision sessions.

The provider made sure that medicines were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

If people required support with their medicines, staff were trained to do this. We saw information was included in people’s care records about what medicines they required, and medicines administration records (MARs) were completed when medicines were administered. There were processes to monitor the use of ‘when required’ medicines, particularly the use of behaviour modifying medicines, to ensure this was kept to a minimum and only used when necessary.