St James' Park Care Home

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.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and the registered manager investigated and reported safety events. Learning from safety events were discussed with staff in monthly learning meetings and shared with the providers other services to continually identify and embed good practice.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. Important information was shared when people moved between services to ensure there was continuity of care. A professional who worked with the service told us, “When one of their residents is admitted to the hospital they provide comprehensive baseline information that helps identify any changes in the resident’s needs.”

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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 service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and who they would report any concerns to both internally and externally. They said, “Safeguarding is protecting everyone from neglect, harm and any form of abuse. If I suspect any form of abuse or anything related to safeguarding, I will report to the nurse in charge or the manager. If no action is taken by Nurse/Manager, I will call the Whistleblower hotline.” Where people lacked capacity to make their own decisions regarding where they wanted to live, we found appropriate legal authorisations for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Staff supported people to manage risks whilst maintaining their independence by promoting positive risk taking. For example, staff had assessed people for risks to their oral health, risk of falls and risk to their skin. Where a risk had been identified staff followed actions to keep people safe such as provide specialist equipment to protect people from damaged skin.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The building and equipment used to meet people’s needs were regularly serviced and well maintained, a relative told us, “The building is safe.”

The service 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. Managers followed safe recruitment practices and made sure staff training was up to date. Staff told us their performance was regularly reviewed and they felt supported and empowered to fulfil their roles. One staff member said, “[Registered Manager] encourages us to further our skills. She has supported us to do our NVQ’s and provides us with opportunities to do further training such as the nursing associate degree.” People told us “Staff are good, they know what I need, they are well trained, and I feel safe.” Relatives said, “The staff are well trained. They do a lot of training especially the agency staff who do a lot of shadowing. My relative feels safe here.”

The service 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 and free from the spread of infection throughout. Robust cleaning schedules were in place and regularly reviewed by staff and the management team. A relative said, “The home is always very clean and tidy throughout.”

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. Medicines were given safely and people received them as prescribed. When people were prescribed medicine in patch form, the sites of application were recorded and rotated appropriately. However, the removal of previous patches was not always recorded. We discussed this with the registered manager who took immediate action to ensure staff recorded when patches were removed to mitigate the risk of an overdose. Staff were knowledgeable about people and their medicines. People’s preferences were considered. When medicines were prescribed to be taken ‘when required’ there was information in place to guide staff when these might need to be given. Risk assessments were in place for high-risk medicines and regularly reviewed. Medicines were stored safely and there were appropriate arrangements for disposal, and for controlled drugs. There was suitable temperature monitoring being carried out. Staff training and competency checks were in place and documented. There were regular medicines audits and areas for improvement were identified and actions put in place.