Parkside 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 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 management team completed a monthly accident and incident analysis which helped them identify any trends and patterns. A lessons learnt process took place following safety events to identify what went wrong, what could be done differently, what lessons were learned and how practice could change to improve.

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. Hospital packs were generated from the electronic care planning system. This gave up to date details regarding people's care and current support and included recent care documentation. Staff confirmed information regarding medication administration was also included to ensure safety and consistency. This process ensured a streamlined approach to people’s care and support.

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 management team kept a record of safeguarding concerns and took action to improve practice where appropriate. Staff received training in safeguarding and understood how to recognise and report concerns. One staff member said, “I feel confident that concerns would be addressed, if not I would raise concerns with the area manager.”

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were understood by the manager and there were processes in place to review people’s capacity in line with the MCA.The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. 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 (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA. People had care plans in place to ensure DoLS were recorded and people supported in line with them. Where people lacked capacity, best interest decisions had been completed to ensure their views, wishes and preferences were considered.

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 associated with people’s care were identified and managed to keep people safe. For example, where people were at risk of falls, appropriate sensor equipment was in place to alert staff and enabled a timely response, reducing the risk of harm. We identified 1 care record which required more information regarding the use of a hoist for transfers. We spoke with the management team who addressed this immediately. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the person's needs and were able to explain the support required during transfers, which helped to minimise associated risks and maintain the person's safety.

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 employed a maintenance person who completed environmental checks in line with expected standards. An evacuation bag was in place and contained personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) to ensure people were supported appropriately to exit the home in an emergency. We identified 2 minor issues regarding building safety which were addressed on the day of our inspection. The new manager had implemented 6 monthly fire drills to ensure all staff, across all shifts, maintained competency in evacuation procedures, and emergency roles.

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. The provider had a recruitment process which helped them select new staff. Pre-employment checks were carried out to ensure staff were suitable to support vulnerable people. Staff told us they felt supported by their managers and found them approachable. One staff member said, “I have had numerous supervision and appraisals while at Parkside. Senior staff and management are supportive towards us as a team.” Staff told us they received appropriate training to support them to carry out their roles effectively. One staff member said, “Training is closely monitored at Parkside and we have a good online training course that are really good for keeping us up to date with changes with the areas we need, we also have robust in-house training such as moving and handling, basic life support, fire safety, and end of life care.” However, we reviewed the training matrix and found some training had not always been completed in line with the provider’s expectation. The manager told us some training had already been scheduled to bridge these gaps to ensure staff had the skills and knowledge they required.

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. The management team detected and controlled the risk of it spreading or share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. We carried out a tour of the home and found some areas required deep cleaning. The staff team began to address these issues during our inspection, and the manager sent assurances these areas had been effectively cleaned. The management team told us they were planning on some refurbishment to sluice and kitchenette areas which would improve cleanliness. Staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and understood how to follow safe infection control practices.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People received their medicines as prescribed by staff who were trained and competent in the safe administration of medicines. However, we identified some minor concerns which were actioned immediately. These were in relation to medicine stock and no risk assessment was in place for paraffin based topical creams. People who were prescribed medicines on an ‘as and when required’ basis, had protocols in place to ensure safe administration.