Priory Park 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 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.

Risks relating to people were assessed and managed appropriately, with the involvement of the person or their relatives where possible, so they understood any decisions about this.

Maybo training was used to reduce risk and promote positive and safer outcomes for both individuals and staff. These strategies were used to minimise the need for restrictive interventions. De-briefing took place should intervention be required and the service maximised learning for the future about the causes of people’s distress.

Policies, procedures and individuals care plans were clear that restraint should only ever be used as a last resort.

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.

The registered manager worked with people and relatives to establish a plan of care prior to people moving into the home. Pre-assessment paperwork was detailed and captured information about people’s needs, preferences and histories. Information was shared with staff before people moved into the home.

Relatives told us if their family member needed support from a health professional, this was arranged and documentation we saw evidenced this. All relatives stated they were kept informed throughout.

If people required admission to hospital, information shared was exemplary, person-centred and very detailed. It included baseline assessments, the previous weeks continence and bowel records, and health check updates, to provide the information needed to support health professionals to make decisions.

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.

All staff had access to training and safeguarding was a subject discussed at each team meeting with opportunity for comments and discussion. Safeguarding posters were on display in the staff room and around the building, to guide staff, people and visitors on how to raise a concern about abuse or improper treatment.

People told us they were safe and cared for. When asked if they felt safe, a person said “Yes, I am, because I am here”. One staff member was able to list examples of concerns that may need to be safeguarded, they said “I am confident that any concerns I raised would be acted on.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that (DoLS) were applied for through the relevant local authority and reviewed as per review schedule. Details of DOLS authorisations were documented in care plans including review date.

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.

Care plans detailed the approaches to be taken by staff when people communicated their needs, emotions or distress and these were followed by staff resulting in consistent support. Staff communicated respectfully when describing these communication needs and used positive language when describing incidents. Risks relating to people were assessed and managed appropriately, with the involvement of the person and their relatives, so they understood any decisions.

When people were feeling distressed, staff managed this in a positive way that protected their rights and dignity. Appropriate strategies were used to minimise the need for restrictive interventions. De-briefing took place, and the service maximised learning for the future about the causes of people’s distress.

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 had effective arrangements to manage the risk of fire. Staff received annual fire safety training and attended drills and practice evacuations. Some staff were able to describe the fire evacuation process however others were more unsure; we fed this back to the provider. Fire safety measures such as emergency lighting, evacuation equipment and extinguishers were in place, and routinely checked.

The provider ensured facilities, equipment and technology were monitored and well-maintained. During our inspection, we observed the environment to be mostly safe and secure. There were maintenance staff available to conduct scheduled maintenance or repairs, and regular safety checks were in place. We observed evidence external servicing was carried out in the required timeframes.

The maintenance team had a schedule of tasks to be completed including audits, repairs and a programme for completion of decorating. When decorating the dining area in a unit, the decorators worked 7pm to Midnight to reduce the disruption to individuals living there. This had worked well and the same plan was to be used in other communal areas.

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.

A staff member told us, “The staffing levels are good; I can help people and take my time.”

The provider used a dependency tool to help assess the number of staff required to support people. During the assessment we saw people were helped quickly if they needed support, and staff supported people with patience and understanding.

The provider followed safe recruitment procedures to ensure all required checks were completed before staff started work at the service. Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were carried out. DBS checks provide information about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. References were checked and signed off by the manager before a job offer was sent.

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.

There was an effective approach to assessing and managing the risk of infection. Housekeeping staff were available daily, and the service was observed to be clean and tidy throughout. A relative said, “The environment is safe and clean when you visit, very nice since the decorating”

Staff had access to IPC training, and senior managers carried out robust IPC audits. Personal protective equipment, soluble laundry bags and hazardous waste bins were provided to promote good levels of hygiene. There was a sluice room on each floor to dispose of biological waste.

People were well presented with good levels of hygiene. There was evidence of people receiving oral care in care plans, with staff providing encouragement if initial prompts were refused.

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.

We observed medicines given diligently with medicines being prepared 1 at a time in a dedicated room. Administration and records were completed fully, before staff moved on to the next person’s medicines.

Controlled drugs were stored, recorded, administered and disposed of safely. There was effective oversight of their handling in line with current legislation and guidance

People’s behaviour was not controlled by excessive or inappropriate use of medicines; the required plans for medication taken when needed were in place for those prescribed medicines to manage anxiety or distress.

People receiving their medicines covertly were safely supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff were trained and regularly completed competency assessments deeming them competent to manage medicines safely

A person told us that they were often in pain and that staff made sure they had their painkillers when needed.