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.

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 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.

Where safeguarding concerns and complaints were raised, a robust review of the matter had been undertaken to ensure lessons were learned to support future improvement. Staff knew how to record accidents and incidents. These were logged and analysed to identify potential trends and themes. The registered manager told us and records confirmed the outcomes of the above were discussed during staff meetings. The impact of this demonstrated the provider’s and registered manager’s commitment to put things right, learn, improve and to prevent similar issues from recurring.

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.

No new people had been admitted to Park House since 2021. The registered manager told us people’s needs were assessed prior to their admission to the service, and this information was used to inform their care plan and associated risk assessments. They told us people’s care and support needs were planned where possible with the person, those acting on their behalf and other key partners to ensure continuity of care. Transition arrangements were available to enable prospective people to visit Park House in preparation for their move, to meet with staff and other people using the service, potentially involving a series of short visits and even overnight stays.

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.

Relatives raised no concerns about the safety of their family member whilst living at Park House. A relative told us, “I am happy with the care and support because you can always trust the quality of the staff.”

The provider and registered manager were aware of their responsibility to notify us and the Local Authority of any allegations or incidents of abuse. Internal safeguarding investigations were completed and robust. The management team collaborated with the Local Authority as part of their statutory responsibilities to demonstrate openness and transparency.

Staff were ‘sign posted’ to the document ‘Don’t Turn a Blind Eye’ which underpins the fundamental principles ofsafeguarding and the importance of staff to report concerns at the earliest opportunity. Staff were able to tell us about the different types of abuse and what to do to make sure people were protected from harm. Staff told us they would escalate any concerns to the provider, registered manager, Local Authority or Care Quality Commission.

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.

Risks to people’s safety and wellbeing were identified and recorded. These related to the risks involved in enabling people to access the community safely, undertaking particular social activities and risks posed relating to specific healthcare conditions.

Information provided identified people who could become anxious and distressed; and potential factors which could cause them to behave in a way that may challenge others. Risk management strategies were in place to enable staff to manage the person's behaviour safely and to improve their quality of life without restricting the person’s freedom and liberty. Staff spoken with had a good understanding and knowledge of risk management strategies in place, to ensure theirs and others safety and wellbeing.

Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans [PEEP] were evident for each person. These considered and identified people’s physical and neurological needs which would affect their ability to safely evacuate, their ability to communicate and understand instructions and where they could be anxious and distressed. A PEEP is a bespoke ‘escape plan’ for individuals who may not be able to reach a place of safety unaided or within a satisfactory period in the event of a fire emergency.

Fire drills were routinely undertaken for both day and night staff. Fire drills are important for staffto ensure they can evacuate vulnerable people safely and efficiently during a fire emergency.

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

Relatives did not express any concern in relation to the safety of the environment.The service was decorated and furnished to a suitable standard. People had personalised rooms which supported their individual needs and preferences. People had access to an outside space that was safe and secure.

Routine environmental and equipment checks were completed to ensure the premises were safe. For example, safety checks were completed relating to the service’s electrical and gas installation system, electric portable appliances throughout the service and fire safety equipment checks. Specialist or adaptive equipment was made available for people’s use to ensure their needs were met.

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.

Observations during our assessment demonstrated the deployment of staff was appropriate and there were enough staff to meet people’s individual needs. Each person who used the service required 1-to-1 or 2-to-1 support from staff to keep them safe, both ‘in-house’ and to enable them to access the community.

Staff recruitment records demonstrated relevant checks were completed before a new member of staff started working at the service. This included an application form, written references, proof of identification and Disclosure and Barring Service [DBS] checks. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Newly employed staff received an induction and were given the opportunity to ‘shadow’ more experienced staff to ensure they understood the routines of the service and their roles and responsibilities.

Staff were supported to complete both mandatory and specialist training relating to the needs of people being currently supported. This was to ensure they had the right knowledge, skills and competence to carry out their role. Staff told us they felt valued and supported and received formal supervision at regular intervals. Records confirmed what we were told.

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.

No relatives raised concerns about the cleanliness of the environment. Observations during our visit demonstrated the service was clean, hygienic and odour free. Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities to ensure people were protected by the prevention and control of infection arrangements at Park House. Staff had access to policies and procedures on infection control and had sufficient Personal Protective Equipment [PPE]. Staff were observed using PPE appropriately and when required.

Audits relating to the service’s infection, prevention and control arrangements were conducted at regular intervals and demonstrated there was a good level of compliance. Staff had received appropriate infection, prevention and control training.

The provider made sure that medicines management was safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

Relative’s comments relating to the management of medicines for their family member were positive. Comments included, “They [staff] appear to be on top of medication and it seems they change it when needed” and “I don’t have any issues with the management of medication.”

Staff were observed to administer people’s medicines appropriately and in line with current guidance. The medication rounds were evenly spaced out throughout the day to ensure people did not receive their medicines too close together or too late. Observation of staff practice showed staff undertook this task with dignity and respect for the people being supported.

Medicine records were maintained to a good standard, and Medication Administration Records [MAR] demonstrated people received their medicines as they should and in line with the prescriber’s instructions. The service ensured people's behaviour when anxious and distressed was not controlled by excessive and inappropriate use of medicines. PRN [as needed] protocols were in place for all prescribed medicines administered in this manner.

Staff who administered medication were trained and had their competency assessed to ensure they remained competent to undertake this task safely.