Hurst Park Court

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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

At our last inspection, we found the provider was in breach of regulation 12 (safe care and treatment), due to the provider failing to assess, manage and mitigate risks to people. At this inspection we found the provider had taken enough action and was no longer in breach of regulation.  

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.

Staff told us they understood the process for reporting and recording incidents. Any accidents and incidents were discussed during staff handovers and meetings to learn from safety incidents and to help prevent recurrence.  

The provider had demonstrated a learning culture by learning from and acting on the findings at the last inspection to make the necessary improvements. The district manager told us, “It’s been a real journey, but we took immediate action and are now in a far better place.”

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 provider carried out a thorough assessment of people before they were admitted to the service to ensure their needs could be met, in line with their choice and preference.

A relative told us how their loved one had recently been admitted to the home and how well they had settled in, they told us, “Staff are quite good at communicating if there are any issues with [Name]. We have been involved in decisions about [Name’s] care.”

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.

The provider shared any safeguarding concerns with external agencies, such as the Local Authority, appropriately and in a timely way.

Information was available to all staff to guide them on safeguarding concerns and the reporting procedures. Staff told us they had completed safeguarding training, and they were knowledgeable about the processes for reporting abuse. Comments from staff included, “I wouldn’t tolerate any kind of abuse, I’d report it right away” and “I would definitely report and make sure the residents were safe.”

People and their relatives told us they felt safe living at Hurst Park Court. One person told us, “Yes, I do feel safe, I know the staff, I trust them.” A relative commented, “Yes, it’s safe, I get that vibe, because of the staff and the environment.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People’s care records contained detailed risk assessments, which provided person centred guidance to staff on how best to manage and mitigate risks in line with people’s preferences for their care and support.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s risks and how to manage them. We observed staff managing risk in line with the person’s care plan. For example, staff used equipment to transfer a person where it was unsafe for them to transfer independently.

Since our last inspection, an electronic system had been introduced for care plans. The district manager told us how this had provided an opportunity for peoples records to be updated and for further person-centred information to be added.

Accidents and incidents were analysed regularly to help identify any trends and themes and to help preventative measures to be implemented in a timely way.  

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

A full-time maintenance person ensured all health and safety checks were completed. Fire exits were kept clear and all necessary fire safety checks were completed. The environment was fitted with aids and adaptations to ensure people’s safety and promote their independence such as handrails, ramps, walk in showers and specialist baths.

Since our last inspection, improvements had been made to the environment, such as the installation of new kitchenettes and the replacement of flooring. The home was bright, spacious and well maintained. There was a ‘pub’ onsite where people could enjoy spending time with family and friends. Appropriate signage was in place to help people navigate around the home.

There were further plans to develop the garden and outside space into a sensory garden, to help people living with a cognitive impairment to become involved in planting and growing things.

People’s bedrooms were attractively decorated and personalised to reflect their preferences. People, with the support of their families, were involved in choosing décor for their bedrooms.

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.

We observed staff responding to people’s call bells in a timely way. People told us there were enough staff to meet their needs.

Many of the staff had worked at the home for many years and were keen to tell us how much they enjoyed working at Hurst Park Court, one member of staff told us, “It’s like being at home here, we are all a family, I feel like I belong.”

Staff received the necessary training and support required for their role. Staff told us, “The training is good, we do a lot online,” “We all pull together we are like one big happy family” and “Everyone supports each other.”

People and their relatives thought highly of the staff and thought they were well trained. One person told us, “Staff are there and if I need anything then the staff will get it.”

Relatives confirmed, “Staff seem to have had enough training and there always seems to be enough of them. I see the same staff [when I visit]” and “Staff are lovely, so helpful and approachable.”

Since the last inspection, the provider had introduced support plans for team leaders which provided expected standards and helped to further raise the quality of care being provided.

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.

The home was clean, hygienic and well maintained. Domestic staff were employed and maintained cleaning records.

There was a good stock of PPE available, and staff were observed using and disposing of PPE safely. Colour coded cleaning equipment was used, for example, designated colours were used in specific areas reducing the risk of the spread of infection across the home.

People and their relatives told us they thought the home was kept clean. A relative told us, “The home is clean and well maintained, mum’s room is always well cleaned. Her laundry is always returned.”

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.

Staff responsible for the management of medicines had completed the required training and their competency was routinely assessed.

For people who required PRN medicines (as and when required) PRN protocols were in place and contained appropriate guidance for staff on when and how to use them appropriately.

Monthly medicine audits were carried out to ensure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs.