Collingtree 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

Risks to people were assessed and measures were in place to mitigate risk, positive risk taking was supported. Some people told us there was not a lot of opportunity to go into the community, the provider had listened and addressed this by providing transport to access the community more frequently. There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs. However, at times staff focused on getting the task completed rather than focusing on the individual when providing care. Some staff felt that additional staff would be helpful, we saw no evidence that people were at risk of 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.

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.

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

People were involved in managing risk. One person told us how they had been supported to go back to their own home independently for a time and were having regular stays with family. Another person said, “I feel alright, can’t complain because I kept my independence and I am still doing things if I want to do it and nobody will stop me.” A person told us they were not able to go out without somebody taking them for their own safety but there was no restriction on a relative taking them out and they did do this. One person told us they had not had opportunity to go out of the home very often. We found no evidence that people were restricted from leaving the home to access the community should they wish. People had given the provider feedback on getting out into the community more. This had been listened to and the provider had invested in transport to support people to enjoy more time away from the home.

Staff understood the importance of positive risk taking, supporting independence in this area and the benefits for people. One staff member told us, where people were able they had access to a resident’s kitchen where they could make themselves drinks and snacks, they said, “It gives them [people] independence.” Another staff member gave an example of how a person liked to spend time alone outside of the home and how the benefit on the persons wellbeing outweighed the risk. A staff member told us residents go out with friends and family or out for a walk if they would like with a member of staff, “Sometimes someone might just like 5 minutes fresh air or a trip to a shop to buy something or out for a coffee. With a whole home approach there is always someone available to do this.” A staff member told us that people participated in planning their care via a one to one meeting, ensuring their choices and preferences were recorded for staff guidance and information.

People were not restricted from moving around the home and people could spend time alone in their rooms should they wish. We observed that communal areas were not always staffed for short periods of time during our site visit, however, there was no evidence that people were at an increased risk of harm.

Records evidenced that people, their relatives or advocates participated in the initial and regular updating of risk assessing and planning their own care as per the providers policy and procedure. Where a family member or advocate could not attend reviews in person, provision was made for sharing via e-mail so that they were still involved and able to give feedback. One person who preferred to manage their own medication had been well supported with this. A risk assessment had been completed and a care plan was in place that included ensuring trained staff were available to assist only if the person should require/request it.

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

Most people told us there were enough staff to meet their needs. One person told us, “I think there is enough staff, during the night I can hear them going up and down, they constantly check in regular intervals, I like to see staff, it makes me feel safe.” Another person told us, “I think there is enough staff, can’t say more.” One person told us “I think there is enough staff but sometimes like yesterday there was nobody around to help in the communal area.” They told us someone called the bell for staff and there was a delay in staff attendance, “It happens but not often.”

Staff told us there were enough staff available to meet people’s needs. The providers whole home approach allowed flexibility of staff across the service to ensure people’s needs could be met. A staff member told us, “I have no concerns with staff numbers, we have a whole home approach with different departments available to assist if needed, e.g. domestic staff, everyone is fully trained in moving and handling and all other areas, everyone has the full training programme.” One staff member told us there were enough staff available to meet people’s needs but they could “Always use more hands to give extra details to residents.” Another staff member told us that an additional staff member in the mornings would be helpful. Staff received regular training and updates. A staff member told us that the supervisions process included goal setting and options for additional training available, there were options for leadership and senior carer training for staff.

There were enough staff to meet peoples needs. However, we observed that at times communal areas were not staffed. For example, during a 45 minute period in the memory lane communal area where people were living with dementia there was no staff presence in the room and no one came to check on the 2 people using this area. However, there was no evidence that either were at risk. During a lunchtime observation staff entered and left the room without engaging with people, they appeared task focused assisting other people into the dining room in readiness for lunch. We observed 2 related staff members to be working together in the same area on two separate site visits, we raised this with the registered manager who advised they had already spoken with the staff members post our first site visit about this and would address this again. The inspector was advised on the first site visit that this was against company policy.

Systems and processes were in place to deploy sufficient staff numbers across the home to meet people's needs. The provider used a calculation tool to ensure the correct staffing ratios. Rota’s evidenced that the staff were deployed across the service as per the calculation tool. The provider used a whole home approach to staffing, this meant staff were flexibly deployed across areas of the home as and when needed. For example, we observed that an extra staff member was deployed to a different part of the home during the evening as the needs of the people in this area increased at this time. Records evidenced that staff received regular training and support to ensure they could meet the needs of people in the home. Regular performance reviews were mandatory as were regular supervisions which could either be reflective using a professional reflection tool, in a group or 1 to 1.

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.