Bingley Park Care 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 – 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 service 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.

There were systems and processes in place to support a positive learning culture. Any lessons identified were discussed with staff. There were systems in place to monitor lessons learnt to support an overview of incidents to monitor any emerging patterns or trends. Staff advised us discussing lessons learnt was a positive experience, discussed either in supervision or team meetings.

The service 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.

The service had systems in place to support people with continuity of care, such as completed initial assessments and close working with health partners and local authorities. For example, there were regular general practice visits for people in the service. Systems were in place to monitor people’s safety such as important dietary information being in place with cooking staff.

The service 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.

There was a safeguarding policy in place and staff had received training. The service notified the appropriate agencies of safeguarding concerns such as the local authority. People in the service advised us they felt safe. When asked if they felt their relative was safe, one relative told us, “‘I have peace of mind now’.

There were robust systems in place regarding best interest decision making and Deprivations of liberty safeguards (DoLS). 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 Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application for DoLS.

The service 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.

There was collaborative working with relevant services to manage risk, such as working with health services. Professionals told us the service involved them appropriately to manage risks. One professional told us, “They [the service], always escalate concerns to us appropriately.”

People told us there was regular input from relevant professionals to manage risk, such as the GP surgery. One relative told us, “Any changes to their [relative’s] condition, the home do not hesitate to contact the GP for advice.”

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

There were robust systems in place to ensure the safe maintenance of the environment. Regular safety checks were completed and audited by leaders in the service. We observed there to be a safe environment, such as appropriate window restrictors in place. People told us the service was regularly cleaned. One person told us, “The cleaning staff work very hard, everywhere is always clean and tidy”.

The service 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.

There were robust recruitment systems and processes in place. Staff dependency tools evidenced there were enough staff to meet people’s care needs. We observed good staff deployment throughout the service and staff had completed relevant training to fulfil their role. People told us there was safe staffing in the service. One relative told us, “The staff all work for the same aim.”

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

There was an IPC policy in place, and the service had robust systems in place to manage and mitigate risks of infection, such as cleaning schedules. There was appropriate personal protective equipment throughout the service, and we observed a clean environment on site visits. People told us staff used appropriate protective personal equipment when supporting with care. One relative told us, “We, as a family, are very impressed that the staff always put a fresh apron on when caring for our [relative]”.

The service 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.

There were robust systems and policies in place to ensure the safe medicine management, for example, staff had received appropriate medicines training. There were relevant medicines policies in place including “as and when required” medication policies. We observed there to be correct medicine counts in place, with regular audits completed by senior staff. People told us their medicines were managed safely. One person told us, “They are as regular as clockwork”.