66 Park Lane

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 service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

We observed staff listening to people and responding to their concerns. Staff knew what incidents to report and how to report them.

The service investigated incidents thoroughly and shared outcomes with people and relevant stakeholders. We saw evidence of change as a result of incidents which had occurred.

The manager told us they received safety alerts from the government, local authority and CQC which informed them of upcoming risks along with themes and trends to ensure the provider could take appropriate action to mitigate these risks.

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 manager shared with us, in detail, the process followed when a person moved into the home. This included sharing of relevant information, contacting family members and ensuring medical support was in place by supporting the person to register with a local GP surgery. The manager told us when a person moved into the service, they would review them on a regular basis to ensure they were settling in.

A professional told us, “66 Park Lane worked very well with my client and recognised the need for a long transition. They were very involved in the transition work and without this active participation we would not have been able to step my client down as smoothly, to a less restrictive environment.”

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 protecting people’s right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm, and neglect.

People told us they felt safe living in the home.

Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and who they would report any concerns to both internally and externally. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Where restrictive practices were in place Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place to legally authorise, restrictions placed on people to keep them safe.

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.

Staff supported people to manage risks whilst maintaining their independence by promoting positive risk taking. Staff gave us an example of support they provided to a person to ensure the person and others remained safe.

The manager told us about a person’s health condition and how they communicated the risks to the person when they wanted to make unwise decisions relating to this. There was a robust risk assessment in place.

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

Health and safety and fire safety risk assessments were completed and checks made of equipment to ensure this was safe to use. Any concerns with environment were reported to the management team or appropriate person for further action.

We observed 1 fire door which did not close on our first on-site inspection visit. This had been repaired by the second day of our on-site inspection visit.

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.

We observed during our 2 days on-site there were enough staff to provide safe consistent care.

The manager had a training matrix in place which evidenced all staff had completed all of their induction and their statutory and mandatory training to ensure they were able to meet people's needs. The provider followed safe recruitment practices.

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.

The provider had a robust up-to-date Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) policy and staff attended IPC training.

We reviewed cleaning schedules which were consistently completed. We observed the home was clean.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

Staff received medication training, and their competency was checked to ensure they understood the requirements for the safe administration of medicines. Staff told us they felt well trained and confident to support people to receive their medicines safely. Staff supported and involved people to manage their medicines and followed best practice guidance for administering medicines.

The staff team were proactive at reporting any changes to people’s medicines promptly. The manager told us, during people’s annual health reviews, their medicines were reviewed.