Phoenix Park Care Village

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 provider had a positive culture of safety where concerns were identified, discussed and acted upon. Staff investigated incidents and used lessons learned to improve practice. Monthly accident and incident analysis reviewed trends in falls, clinical incidents, and accidents, with outcomes used to identify patterns and actions to reduce future risk. Lessons learned were discussed during staff meetings, helping staff understand how improvements could be embedded into practice. People and their relatives felt able to raise concerns and were confident action would be taken.

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.

Care plans contained clear and detailed information about people's health conditions, preferences, and support needs, helping staff deliver safe and consistent care. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals, relatives, and other agencies to ensure people's changing needs were identified and responded to promptly. Effective communication and coordinated care planning during transitions between services, including hospital admissions and discharges, supported positive outcomes for people.

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 understood people's needs well and there were systems in place to monitor safety and respond to concerns. Safeguarding concerns were appropriately referred to the local authority and monitored through a safeguarding tracker, which provided oversight of investigations, outcomes and actions taken. People told inspectors they felt safe living at the service and relatives were confident their family members were protected from harm. A relative said, “[Name] is definitely safe; they have taken them under their wing.”

We checked to ensure the service was working within principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and had the necessary Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations in place where required. All applications had been made appropriately, records were regularly reviewed, and any conditions were being met. This helped ensure people's rights were protected and respected.

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 balanced safety with promoting choice and independence. They encouraged and supported people to take positive risks, enabling them to develop confidence and maintain control over their daily lives. For example, some people had been supported to travel independently and access local community facilities, helping them remain connected to activities that were important to them. Individual risk assessments and care plans provided staff with clear guidance on how to identify, monitor and manage risks while respecting people's preferences, rights and independence. This ensured people could make choices and achieve their goals in the safest way possible.

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

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor and maintain environmental safety. Regular audits were carried out covering environmental health and safety, and fire safety helping to identify and address any concerns promptly. A planned maintenance programme was in place to ensure equipment, premises, and safety systems were routinely checked, serviced, and kept in good working order. These arrangements helped promote a safe environment for people, staff, and visitors.

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.

Recruitment records demonstrated safe recruitment practices were followed, including appropriate pre-employment checks to help ensure staff were suitable for their roles. People received support from staff who had the skills, experience, and knowledge to meet their needs safely and effectively. Staff completed a range of mandatory and role-specific training, which included assessments of practical competencies to ensure they could apply their learning in practice. The provider used dependency assessments to understand and monitor people's needs, ensuring care and staffing arrangements remained appropriate and responsive as needs changed. This helped ensure people received safe, reliable, and person-centred care from a workforce that was appropriately trained and supported. People and their relatives told us staff responded promptly when support was needed.

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.

The home was clean and well maintained throughout, with daily cleaning schedules completed across communal areas, people's bedrooms, and shared facilities. Regular infection prevention and control audits were undertaken each month to monitor compliance, identify any areas for improvement, and support ongoing good practice. Staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and demonstrated a good understanding of infection prevention and control procedures. Observations showed staff followed safe working practices, including effective hand hygiene and the appropriate use of PPE when providing care and support.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.

Medicines were stored securely, and stock checks completed on the day of assessment were accurate. We identified some gaps in temperature monitoring across the home, and where storage temperatures were outside recommended ranges, escalation procedures had not always been followed. Although audits had highlighted these issues, sufficient action had not been taken at the time. The registered manager acknowledged this and introduced temperature monitoring into daily handovers to improve oversight and escalation.

Controlled drugs were stored and managed appropriately, with correct stock balances and the required signatures recorded. However, weekly stock checks were not always documented in line with the home's policy. The registered manager introduced twice-weekly checks to strengthen assurance.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs and health conditions, supported by detailed care plans. Guidance was in place for medicines prescribed on an 'as required' basis, with staff recording the reason for administration and its effectiveness.

Some medicine records required improvement. Transdermal patch rotation charts were not always fully completed, and records for topical medicines did not consistently identify the application site. During the assessment, the registered manager implemented changes to the electronic MAR system to ensure consistent recording.

Staff responsible for administering medicines had completed up-to-date competency assessments.