The Old Parsonage

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

We have reviewed 3 quality statements for this key question.

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.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Staff understood their role in safeguarding people from abuse. Staff told us they would report any concerns to the registered manager and they were confident actions would be taken. The registered manager demonstrated they were aware of actions to take if any concerns were raised. They told us they liaised with the local authority where needed.

Systems were in place to keep people safe. The provider had a safeguarding policy which was available to all staff. The registered manager discussed safeguarding with staff during supervisions and at staff meetings to continually make sure staff were aware of processes to follow. Following a recent safeguarding incident the registered manager had take action to address risks and reviewed systems to increase management presence out of hours. Staff had applied to the local authority for any Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations. Where these had been approved, the registered manager was able to demonstrate they were meeting any conditions attached to authorisations.

We observed staff working safely to meet people's needs.

People and relatives told us they felt care and support provided was safe and they knew how to raise concerns if needed. Relatives told us they had been informed of recent safeguarding concerns and actions taken by the registered manager.

Staff knew how to access people's risk management plans which gave them up to date guidance. The registered manager told us staff talked about risks and people's needs daily during handovers which helped them make sure guidance was accurate.

People had personalised risk management plans which gave staff guidance on how to support them with managing any risks. People told us if they needed any equipment to help them move, staff knew how to use it which helped them feel safe.

We observed staff working in a safe way. Appropriate equipment was available at the service which staff had been trained to use.

Nursing staff regularly reviewed people's individual risks and made sure guidance was accurate. The provider used nationally recognised risk assessments such as the Waterlow for assessing people's risks of developing pressure ulcers. If needed, people had positive behaviour support plans which gave staff clear strategies to use to support people experiencing distress. Systems were in place to make sure specialist help was sought from healthcare professionals in a timely way.

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

People and relatives told us there were enough staff available to meet their needs. People told us staff answered their call bells in a timely way and relatives told us staff were visible when they visited. People and relatives told us they thought staff were "capable" and appeared to be trained.

Staff told us they felt there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff told us they had regular training on various topics and could request more if they needed it. Staff had access to regular supervision with their line management.

We observed there were enough staff available to respond to people's needs. Call bells were answered in a timely way.

Pre-employment recruitment checks had been completed prior to staff starting work. Records were kept of all checks carried out. The registered manager used a dependency tool to calculate staffing numbers. Staff rotas demonstrated staffing numbers were consistent with the dependency tool. Gaps in rotas were filled with agency staff. New staff had an induction when they started work and then received refresher training in many different topics. The registered manager told us they aimed to provide staff with supervision every 3 months to enable staff to talk about any further training needs or areas for development.

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.