• Care Home
  • Care home

Allerton Park Care Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

39-41 Oaks Lane, Allerton, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD15 7RT (01274) 496321

Provided and run by:
Park Homes (UK) Limited

Report from 1 May 2024 assessment

On this page

Safe

Good

Updated 16 December 2024

The service had robust and safe recruitment practises when recruiting staff, and there were enough staff to support people safely. Care plans and associated risks were centred around the individual and their specific health, safety and welfare. Robust safe systems were in place for the management and administration of medicines. The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. An ongoing refurbishment plan for the service and regular auditing of the quality and safety of the environment was in place. Staff were trained and aware of how to protect people from abuse and harm. They knew how to report any concerns. However, we found low percentages of staff had completed dementia training at just over 70% and this was fed back to the provider.

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.

Learning culture

Score: 3

Everyone we spoke to told us they felt safe at Allerton Park. They said they received good care and were offered support and information about their medical conditions. One relative told us when their loved one had experienced a fall, they were not informed in a timely way by staff, but said their loved one was treated and cared for appropriately following their fall and they were offered an apology for the delay. People said they were not necessarily encouraged to raise concerns but felt they would be listened to, and concerns acted upon if they shared them with the service.

The management team had a good insight into the need to be open and honest and investigate and act upon concerns shared. They investigated, recorded and provided outcomes when incidents took place, but also ensured any lessons learned were shared to avoid future incidents. The staff told us they felt well trained and supported, and communication was effective allowing for good teamwork and for them to feel confident and able to do their jobs well. They felt the management was approachable and would listen and act upon concerns shared with them.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed regularly by the registered manager who analysed these for trends, patterns and commonalities. Complaints, incidents and safeguarding concerns were investigated with clear outcomes and lessons to be learnt identified. Actions were followed by the management team. The service had robust procedures to ensure a positive learning culture.

Safe systems, pathways and transitions

Score: 3

All relatives told us they have been involved in the referral process and care planning for their loved one and continued to be invited to regular reviews. Some relatives told us they had chosen Allerton Park and another relative told us it was decided this service could best meet their relative’s needs following assessment in hospital.

Staff assessed people to ensure their individual needs could be met. They then worked with people, their relatives and relevant health professionals to put a person-centred plan in place.

We received feedback from a number of partners including fire safety, Infection prevention and control and local authority. All the feedback we received was positive and described a picture of an improving service.

We saw examples of how people were involved in their care. Where people were unable to make their own decisions, staff had followed the Mental Capacity Act to ensure care was appropriate. Care plans were detailed, and person centred. They included likes and preferences as well as what people needed. Regular monitoring and auditing of care practices were in place. This included review of records, staff practices and feedback from people, relatives and staff.

Safeguarding

Score: 3

People told us they felt safe and knew who to speak with if they had any concerns. Relatives told us they felt their loved ones were safe and they knew they could speak with seniors in charge or management if they had any concerns. A relative had raised concerns and when we discussed these concerns with the registered manager, action was taken to address these concerns. Another relative told us they had been involved and kept informed when Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application was ongoing for their relative.

Staff received training in safeguarding. They understood how to recognise abuse and poor care and report this to their line manager and other relevant professionals. Staff had a good understanding of capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the need to ensure they were acting in the best interest of a person who lacked capacity.

We observed kind and respectful interactions between staff and people. We did not observe any safeguarding concerns in relation to staff approach or the safe delivery of care.

Staff had regular meetings and supervision sessions which included regular discussions around safeguarding. The service had a Safeguarding and Whistleblowing policy in place which staff were familiar with. Safeguarding concerns was logged, investigated and clear actions recorded following investigation.

Involving people to manage risks

Score: 3

People told us they felt safe and secure, and they received good care and emotional support from staff. A relative told us they had been offered good support regarding risks to their relative. Everyone we spoke to said they knew how and who to raise concerns with at the service if they had any. They felt confident they would be listened to, and action taken where appropriate.

Staff understood the risks to people and told us they were kept up to date with changes in people’s needs. One staff member told us this would be done through daily handovers and flash meetings with the management team. Another staff member told us how they recorded changes in people to enable them to review people’s care and be responsive to their needs. We found detailed care records supported staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff were attentive and responsive to people’s needs. Risks to people’s care were well managed and we observed staff following safe practises.

The service managed risks to people’s health, safety and welfare. Risk assessments were person centred and provided detailed information and were regularly reviewed with the person. The service ensured staff were identifying, monitoring and responding to risks to enable people to live their lives in the way they wanted. We saw clear involvement of the person when able, relatives or advocates in any decisions made that impact on their life.

Safe environments

Score: 3

People and relatives told us equipment required for movement and handling was always available and they had no concerns. Everyone we spoke to said the home was clean and comfortable.

Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe and told us staff would always be allocated to communal areas. There were codes on doors to protect people at risk of harm, but these codes were available to people who were not at risk. Staff carried out visual checks of equipment before use, reported concerns and took out of use any equipment that did not appear safe. Management completed daily checks, and this included checking fire exits were clear, and the environment was free from clutter and potential hazards to people.

There had been environmental improvements to the service. We saw some areas of wear and tear, but these issues had been included into the service's refurbishment plan with clear costing and expected completion dates recorded.

Safe systems were in place to ensure the building was maintained safely, including regular checks and audits. Regular checks and health and safety audits were completed in the service. The environment was safe, clean and well presented.

Safe and effective staffing

Score: 3

Most people and their relatives said there were enough staff. However, 1 relative said they felt on occasions there could be more staff in communal lounges. People said they had no concerns about the staffing levels. They said staff were very good.

Staff said there were enough of them on duty, and they received regular training. Staff were involved in daily flash meetings, handovers and regular supervisions. They felt well supported.

There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe. People who preferred to stay in their rooms had access to call bells.

The provider followed robust processes to ensure staff were recruited and inducted into their role safely. The provider used a dependency tool to assess how many staff were required to support people safely. This was reviewed regularly to allow for any change in people’s needs. There was a mandatory training regime programme in place, with generally a 90% compliance rate. However, we identified that the compliance rate for dementia training was just over 70%, the registered manager told us they would ensure this training was prioritised by staff. Only 2 staff were new to care and had completed care certificate training, and a further 7 staff had a NVQ or equivalent qualification of a staff team of 55.

Infection prevention and control

Score: 3

Everyone we spoke to said the home was clean and comfortable.

Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe from the risks associated with infection control. They spoke about the importance of handwashing and effective wearing of personal protective equipment (PPE). They had a good understanding of appropriate waste disposal and the need to dispose of infectious waste appropriately. They also spoke about measures to contain infection and signage required in the event of an outbreak and the use of outbreak boxes. The management we spoke to were aware of the need to inform relevant professionals in the event of outbreak and the importance of sharing information and following advice from outside agencies.

We observed safe practises from staff including regular handwashing and appropriate wearing of PPE when providing personal care, administering medication and at mealtimes. We saw signage about safe handwashing techniques around the building. The premises was odour free and clean. We saw a number of well stocked PPE stations throughout the communal corridors in the buildings and these had various sizes of gloves, aprons and hand sanitisers.

The service had clear roles and responsibilities in accordance with infection prevention and control. We looked at completed daily cleaning schedules which included high touch areas and clear guidance on what required cleaning. We saw regular completed audits of hygiene and cleanliness standards in the building and appropriate documentation and ordering of cleaning products. The service had an up-to-date infection control policy.

Medicines optimisation

Score: 3

People and relatives told us they did not feel able to manage their medication independently and did not raise any concerns about how their medication was managed. We saw examples of people’s preferences being considered when administering their medication and relatives told us they were informed and involved in medication changes and reviews.

Staff responsible for administering medication told us the new electronic system was in place and staff had all received training. They told us that safe ordering and administering of medication had become easier. They felt sufficiently trained and their competency was regularly checked to administer medication. A staff member not responsible for administering medication told us they knew people well and had information recorded to inform them to recognise when a person may be in pain; they would report to seniors and nurses, and they would check and administer pain medication without delay if appropriate.

We observed a medication round and the manager completing a medication audit. Medication was ordered, stored and administered safely to people. People were involved in reviews and assessments relating to their medication. The service had a Medication policy that was up to date, clear and covered all aspects of medication management. Medication was regularly audited, reviewed and monitored.