Ocknell Park

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 69 (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 did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety. They did not always listen to concerns about safety, fully investigate or report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to identify and embed good practice.

Incidents within the service, were recorded but were not always reviewed to prevent reoccurrence. The registered manager told us staff always discussed incidents with the management team; however, records of accidents and incidents were not always complete and were not always known to the provider. Therefore, themes or lessons learnt had not always been identified.

People and their relatives told us they felt confident in the registered manager to address any practical issues their loved one faced.

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.

People and their relatives told us the service communicated well with other services to ensure people’s needs were known. Staff knew where to access information about people and followed up with them after a visit from an external professional or hospital stay.

A health and social care professional commented, “Staff have good information on the individuals’ needs and risk. I have met with the registered manager a few times. They are helpful, well informed and works well with other professionals.”

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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 service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People told us they felt safe. Staff understood how to raise concerns and were confident the management of the service would act immediately. We observed positive interactions throughout the inspection. Staff worked in safe ways, for example, staff confidently used distraction and redirection to support people during times of distress. This action was completed in line with the environmental risk assessment to keep people, staff and visitors safe. The service had made safeguarding referrals to the local authority as necessary.

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 procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place, when needed, to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. The registered manager had oversight of authorisations and this meant people’s rights were fully respected.

A health and social care professional told us, “Staff are consistently providing a good infrastructure of care and support and supervision, while allowing them to have autonomy within the home and respecting their privacy at all times. With staff support, the person has adjusted well following a lengthy period under hospital care and now considers Ocknell Park to be their home.”

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People told us their risks were managed well by the service, and health and social care professionals supporting them agreed.

A person told us, “[Staff member’s name] is like family to me. They advise me what to do, calm me down. I like to go out with the staff; I can’t go out by myself because I’m too nervous.”

A health and social care professional stated, “The service has a down-to-earth and positive risk-taking approach, which thoughtfully balances the person’s freedom of choice with a continued strong emphasis on safety.”

During the inspection, we saw evidence that people’s care plans and risk assessments had additional information guiding staff how to safely support them achieve their goals. We saw records, confirmed by people, of a monthly one to one meeting with their key worker to discuss what has gone well and review areas people may need additional support.
 

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

People told us they could move around the service without restriction. The service was accessible including outside spaces. Staff understood how to keep people safe when moving around. Staff told us they reported any concerns with the environment, and they were addressed promptly. We observed the environment to be well maintained. Staff told us they were clear on their responsibilities to ensure a safe environment for people. Equipment and utility checks were up to date which had supported safety. The service used external specialists and contractors to undertake some specialist checks as necessary.
 

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.

People told us staff were there when they needed them. Training was available in accordance with good practice guidelines for staff who worked with people who required care and support. However, training records did not accurately reflect when staff had completed training. The provider assured us during the inspection this oversight would be addressed.

Recruitment processes were in place; staff were recruited safely. Procedures were in place to ensure the required checks were completed prior to staff commencing their employment. This included enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for adults. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Support for staff was ongoing and there was a schedule of supervisions. Staff told us they felt confident they could approach the registered manager for support at any time. Observations made during our inspection did not highlight concerns about staffing levels.

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.

People and their relatives told us the service was kept clean and tidy, this included people’s own bedrooms. Staff had received training in infection prevention and control. Dedicated staff were employed and ensured the service was clean. We observed the home to be clean and hygienic. People were supported to maintain their own environment as part of supporting with life skills. Safe infection prevention and control procedures were in place and were supported by the provider’s policy. Infection control procedures were in line with good practice guidance; this included food safety and hygiene. Staff had plentiful supplies of cleaning materials, products, gloves and aprons.

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

People received their medicines as prescribed. However, fire risks associated with paraffin-based creams were not assessed. During our inspection we identified the provider’s fire safety policy, which stated each person should have their own individual cream risk assessment, had not been followed. Therefore, the provider could not assure themselves that staff knew what precautions to take to keep people safe.

There were safe processes in place for ordering, storage, administration and disposal of medicines. Staff who were responsible for giving people medicines were trained and during the inspection the provider acted to ensure all staff competency checks were completed. We observed medicines were stored at safe temperatures and checks were in place to ensure this was maintained. Guidance supported staff to ensure medicines taken occasionally were given in a consistent way. Medicines which required stricter controls were monitored and correct control measures were in place. Where medicines were given to people in their best interests, the correct consents were in place and had included communication with medical professionals.