Whitwell Park

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People and their relatives felt their views were listened to and considered and that they were involved in planning of their care. One relative said, “The provider recently introduced monthly relatives' meetings to increase our involvement”. Another relative said that when person’s needs had deteriorated, staff were very supportive and got relevant agencies involved. One person told us that they were looking forward to their planned move on from the care home into their own flat in the near future. The person had clearly been involved in the discussions about that move and was engaged and enthusiastic about the prospect.

The provider sought additional support from the Local Authority when they identified that it was required. When additional funding for extra support was not available from the Local Authority, the provider used their own staff resources to reduce the risks. For example, when staff were concerned about specific risks to two people and the additional 1:1 support was not commissioned for them by the Local Authority, the provider arranged for a staff member to be positioned outside their bedroom throughout the night to reduce associated risks. Staff confirmed those nighttime care support arrangements were in place and that the nighttime staffing levels were adequate to meet people’s care needs.

Due to a serious incident that had recently occurred at the service, the Local Authority increased monitoring of the care provided. This was supporting staff to ensure that there were safe systems of care, in which safety was managed, monitored and assured. The provider was keen to utilise the guidance provided by the external agencies. One nurse practitioner who frequently visit the home to support a person told us the service was prompt in addressing her feedback about how to improve care plans.

Policies and processes about safety were aligned with other key partners who were involved in people’s care journey to enable shared learning and drive improvements. The provider worked closely with external agencies such as primary and secondary health care providers. For example, referrals had recently been made to the GP to assess whether 2 people could be formally diagnosed as having Pica (Pica is a mental health condition where a person compulsively swallows non-food items). Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed effectively. There was a process to ensure that people had risk assessments that were reviewed and updated regularly.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People and their relatives’ felt risks were identified and mitigated. One relative said, “My relative is well looked after and I have no concerns about their safety”. Another one said, “My relative cannot communicate verbally but the staff can read her like a book from their facial expression and gestures”.

Where possible, people and their families were involved in the review of their care plans. All staff had access to people’s care plans and risk assessments and understood them. Staff had guidance and skills to support people in a positive way when they were distressed.

During the site visit we observed staff interacting with people appropriately. People who required 1:1 support had their care staff member with them at all times. Staff encouraged people to take part in individual activities. Care staff supported people to receive personal care and support in a dignified and sensitive manner.

People had risk assessments and care plans to guide staff on how to support them safely. The provider was in the process of reviewing people’s care plans, as part of the transition to electronic care records, to ensure people’s individual risks were identified and reflected in their care plans at all the times. There was a restraint policy to guide staff and ensure that restraint was only ever used as a last resort; and if ever used for staff to ensure it is lawful, for a legitimate purpose, safe and necessary.

People and their families felt they were looked after in a safe environment. Everyone made positive comments about the home being safe and well maintained.

Staff said they had equipment available to support people safely. Maintenance staff monitored the home and maintained routine safety checks and refurbishment work.

People were cared for in a safe environment that was designed to meet their needs. When one potential hazard was identified, relating to the disposal arrangements for used personal protective equipment, the staff rectified it immediately. Equipment used to deliver care and treatment was suitable for the intended purpose, stored securely and used properly.

There were effective arrangements to monitor the safety and upkeep of the premises. For example, there was a process for carrying out routine safety check of the building and equipment as well as a rolling programme of refurbishment work which was underway at the time of the inspection site visit.

Most people were happy with the staffing levels and felt they were sufficient number of well-trained staff to meet people’s needs.

Leaders were confident that staffing levels were sufficient to keep people safe. Leaders had recently changed the way of staff deployment. Most day and night staff agreed there was enough staff to support people. Staff confirmed they received the training they required.

We observed that there was enough staff to support people safely. People who required 1:1 support were receiving it.

The provider had a dependency tool to determine appropriate staffing levels, and it corresponded with the staff rota. Provider had a contingency plan to cover staff absences and worked with a regular agency to maintain consistency of support for people. There were systems and process to monitor staff training, for example by using training matrix.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.