Dearnlea Park Residential 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. Improvement was found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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. When accidents and incidents occurred, the service took appropriate steps to mitigate future risks using professional referrals, care plan reviews and assistive technology. Records evidenced that staff reported and recorded incidents appropriately.

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. Initial assessments were completed either in people’s own homes or in hospital prior to admission to ensure that people’s needs could be met at the point they moved in. The service worked with the people they supported to ensure they had access to health and social care professionals when needed. Systems and processes were in place to ensure that people’s health needs were shared with appropriate organisations, for example if a person required a hospital visit.

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 received training in safeguarding and demonstrated their understanding of how to report safeguarding concerns. A staff member told us, ‘I would record and report any safeguarding concerns to my manager, and they would investigate.’

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. Most people and their relatives we spoke to told us they felt safe and they were involved in conversations around meeting their needs. A person told us, ‘Oh I do (feel safe), its lovely here.’ Records showed people and their relatives were involved in care planning, risk management and reviews of care plans where possible. Care plans were detailed and person centred and contained information to help staff work in a way that pre-empted risk.

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 service had systems and processes in place to ensure that the environment was safe. These included water temperature checks and fire safety checks. All legally required safety certificates were in place. A lift within the home required replacement, plans were in place to do this, and processes were in place to ensure that people could still access all areas of the building.

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. Most people, their relatives and staff told us they felt there were sufficient staff numbers. A staff member told us, ‘We always have enough staff on.’ Staff undertook training to support their roles, and the management team undertook regular observations of practice to assess the competency of their staff.

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 where applicable. Staff had access to sufficient levels of personal protective equipment (PPE) to complete their jobs safely. The service was visibly clean, and staff were observed throughout the day maintaining the cleanliness of the service.

Medicines were mainly managed safely however some improvements were required. Drug trolleys were organised, however, treatment rooms where medicines were stored were untidy and in need of organisation. Overflow medicines were not stored appropriately. Temperature monitoring where medicines were stored was not always completed in line with national guidance. Some dates had blank entries where no temperatures had been recorded, so we could not be assured medicines were stored at the correct temperatures. People that were prescribed as and when needed (PRN) medicines did not always have accompanying protocols in place to ensure staff would know when to give these appropriately. No body maps were in place to ensure staff knew where to apply creams to people. Staff documented on the electronic system where these had been applied, but it was not clear if numerous creams were prescribed for different locations of the body. Patch rotation charts were not always in place; therefore, we could not be assured a different location of the body was used for each application as recommended by the manufacturer. This could lead to skin integrity issues if the same application site is used without the recommended break between doses. Issues found on the day were discussed with the provider who gave assurances these would be rectified. Medicines stock levels checked on the day of inspection were correct, and no missed doses were found on people’s medication administration records (MARs). Care plans were in place for people who had specific medical conditions, for example diabetes. They included information so that staff would know how to care for those people’s specific needs.