Park View 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. This is the first assessment for this service since they registered on 27 March 2023. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. People felt safe when they received support. Risks related to a person’s health and wellbeing were identified and risk management developed. There were enough staff on duty and staff completed a range of training as well as having regular supervision with senior staff. Medicines were administered safely and as prescribed. There was a robust recruitment process including induction in place.

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.

People felt they were able to raise concerns and complaints with the senior staff. Where they had raised a complaint people felt this had been responded to appropriately and in a timely manner.

The registered manager explained that feedback from falls and other incidents was discussed at team meetings or ad hoc meetings which were held if there was a serious concern. Staff confirmed that any lessons identified following incidents and accidents were shared with them.

The provider had a defined process to investigate, review and identify actions in response to incidents and accidents. Following an incident and accident, staff completed a record form which included information on what had happened, and the immediate actions taken. People’s care plans and risk assessments were updated with identified actions to reduce possible risks. An analysis of the incident and accident records was completed to identify if there were any trends or issues where additional support, or staff training was required.

People told us they were happy with the care they received and how the staff worked with other professionals to ensure they received the support they needed.

We did not receive feedback from care workers regarding this aspect of the service.

We did not receive feedback from partners regarding this aspect of the service.

The provider worked with the local authority and the housing team for the service to ensure a person’s support needs could be met before they moved into a flat.

People told us they felt safe when they received care in their own home. One person commented, “Yes, very safe. They are always cheerful and treat me in a good way. I have no reason to be afraid.”

Staff confirmed that they had completed training in relation to safeguarding adults and they demonstrated a good understanding of how to identify and report any concerns about people’s care.

The provider had a procedure to report and investigate any concerns relating to the care provided. If a concern was identified the provider ensured it had been reported to the local authority, an investigation was carried out and any required actions were identified. There was a tracker record was used to identify which stage a safeguarding concern was at and if there were any wider issues where action was required.

Risks related to people’s wellbeing were identified and actions identified to mitigate them. People told us they felt safe when they received support with a person commenting, “Yes they demonstrate that they are in control and that gives me confidence in them.”

Staff confirmed people had detailed care plans and risk assessments in place and they regularly reviewed them to ensure the support they provided reflected their care needs.

People had risk assessments and management plans developed in relation their health and wellbeing which provided staff with guidance on how to manage possible risks. The risk management plans indicated any possible impacts from a person’s medical conditions or other identified risks on their care and how staff could reduce these possible risks. People had access to an emergency alarm system in their property to call for additional support if required. This was monitored to identify if the person had additional support needs not identified in their care plan.

The provider carried out risks assessments in relation to the person’s home environment to identify if there were any risk for the person or staff providing care. A personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) had been completed which provided staff with guidance on how to support the person to evacuate their property if required.

We did not receive feedback from care workers about this aspect of the service.

A range of risk assessments had been completed to ensure people’s homes were safe and staff had guidance on how to support them in case of an emergency.

People explained that staff usually arrived at the agreed time and completed all the support tasks identified in there are plan before they leave. One person commented, “Yes, generally. They only leave early if they have finished.” People also felt staff had received appropriate training to provide the support they required. One person stated, “[The registered manager] does make sure that they are all well trained. They shadow the experienced staff.”

Staff stated they felt there were enough staff on duty to provide people the support they required. They also confirmed that they had been given enough time to get to each visit. In relation to the time for the visit they felt in general they had enough time to provide each person with the support they needed but when there was a 15 or 30 minute visit which required a large number of care tasks to be completed they felt they could be rushed. Staff told us they had completed an induction when they started their role and supervision meetings with senior staff. Staff also confirmed they completed a range of training including falls, dementia and diabetes management.

People were supported by the appropriate number of staff to meet their care needs which were identified during their initial assessment. The provider had an electronic call monitoring (ECM) system which enabled staff to record the time they started and ended each visit. The registered manager confirmed they carried out regular audits on the ECM records to ensure visits occurred as planned. From our analysis of the ECM records there were minimal visits which occurred late. The provider had a robust recruitment procedure in place which included obtaining references, an interview and checks on the applicant’s right to work in the United Kingdom. New staff undertook an induction to the role and the service, training including the care certificate and shadowing experienced staff when they provided care. Staff completed refresher training courses and had regular supervision meetings with senior staff.

People confirmed that the staff who visited them to provide support used personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons.

Staff confirmed they had access to PPE when they provided care and they had completed training in relation to infection prevention and control. The registered manager explained that staff could access PPE from the staff room.

Procedures were in place to manage and control the risk of infection. There were quarterly spot checks carried out to ensure staff were following the infection prevention and control procedures.

People confirmed staff supported them with their prescribed medicines including eye drops. One person said, “Yes, they do it all. No issues.”

Staff told us they had completed training on how to administer people’s medicines as prescribed and they also undertook regular refresher training.

The provider had a procedure for the administration of medicines. People’s care plans had information on any prescribed medicines and risk assessments had been developed which included the use of an inhaler, blood thinners and pain relief. Staff completed an electronic medicines administration record (MAR) when they supported people. The electronic system included the name of the medicine, the dosage, frequency of administration and if the medicine had to administered at a specific time. Regular checks of the electronic MAR were carried out and improvement actions were identified if any issues with administration occurred.