Blair Park Residential 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

People were supported in such a way that it reduced the risk of them being harmed. Staff followed guidance in people’s care plans to keep people safe and staff knew how to recognise and report appropriately any signs of abuse. There were sufficient staff on duty each day to support people and people received the medicines they required. Staff learnt from accidents and incidents which helped meant they were consistently reviewing the service they provided to help ensure it was safe.

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 registered manager said, “We arrange meetings to discuss findings and actions. Any day-to-day actions, we will email staff. We had one person who was able to open the locked doors. As a result we changed the codes for the internal codes and continue to change them regularly. We also arranged for the Kent Association for the Blind to come and do an assessment for one person and gave them a falls monitor bracelet and a sensor mat to alert staff.”

There was a process in place in which an accident and incident form was completed for each event. This was reviewed and signed off by the registered manager to check for appropriateness of the staff response as well as any potential actions. Individual analyses were carried out for each person and the registered manager then undertook a monthly overarching audit to look for themes and trends. Any identified risks were shared with staff.

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.

People were supported to stay free from abuse as staff were aware of their responsibility in this regard. One person said, “I feel safe. I am looked after well and fed.” A relative told us, “She is absolutely safe here. It is definitely a feeling I have.”

Staff were able to tell us what would constitute a safeguarding concern and what they would do if they suspected any intentional harm was taking place. They told us, “Look out for things like bruising. As you get to know them you get to know their emotions what's normal for them and how they react. I would report to my senior and go from there or management.”

People were safe in the service. When people attempted to get up from chairs unaided, staff came to their side to support them to walk or to sit back down. People had suitable mobility aids and where one person would not put their feet on the footplates of their wheelchair, staff stopped pushing them and requested staff support to help ensure the person was safe.

The registered manager was aware of when they should report a potential safeguarding concern to the lead authority as well as CQC. We had received notifications of incidents in this regard. For example, when there was a medicines error.

Risks were reduced to people as staff had regime’s in place to help ensure people were checked when they were in their room, repositioned regularly when they were at risk of pressure sore, or provided food in a suitable way to help reduce their risk of choking. A relative said, “She has the sensor mat. It’s great because on days when she is alert, she will get out of bed and start to walk. It means staff know that this has happened.”

The registered manager said, “Every room has a sensor mat, but we only use them when appropriate. Staff will turn the mat off when people are out of their rooms and in the lounge area and then turn them back on when they return to their room.” A staff member said, “It’s been drummed into us to ensure that the mats are turned on when people are in their room. We need to do this as it helps people stay safe.” Other staff told us, “Making sure residents are being cared for according to their individual needs, what they want. Sometimes care plans change so it’s about following their care plans.”

We observed staff transferring people from an armchair to a wheelchair and this was done in a dignified and safe manner. We also saw people being supported to walk with staff or staff support people to sit in a chair and give them a foot stool to elevate their legs.

Each person had a care plan which included risk assessments related to the person individually. For example, one person was at risk of their skin breaking down as well as falls out of bed and they had a risk assessment for repositioning and bed rails. Another person had epilepsy and their risk assessment gave staff guidance on when they should contact the emergency services. We did find one person had no risk assessments in their care plan, despite moving into the service in May 2024. We raised this with the registered manager. They provided us with evidence on the following day to show these had been done. Risk assessments were reviewed regularly to help ensure they were up to date and accurate.

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 and relatives we spoke with were happy with the response time of staff but we did get mixed feedback. People told us, “I have someone with me to walk. I press my bell”, Sometimes I would love it if could get up earlier but you’ve got to take your turn. I was up earlier today, about 10am” and, “Sometimes you have to wait for staff. Yesterday I wasn’t helped out of bed until 11 o’clock. It’s too late and I was in a bit of state. But that is an exception.” It was similar feedback from relatives. Some relatives told us, “I’ve never had to use the bell, but there is always someone (staff) around”, and “There are always staff around.” However, a second relative said, “At busy times they could do with a few more. Longest having to wait was about 10 mins.”

Staff felt there were enough of them to care for the people living at Blair Park. They told us they had sufficient time to carrying out their caring duties as well as speak with people. The registered manager said, “We use agency, but this is reducing all the time. We have one agency we use, so we have consistent staff. In fact, they feel like permanent staff. The agency will send the staff member to us for 2 days in advance to complete our required induction training. He (the agency) is brilliant.”

Throughout our assessment visit we saw there were sufficient staff attending to people and we did not see anyone having to wait for care.

The registered manager used a dependency tool to determine the number of staff required on duty. They told us that 1 senior carer and 5 care staff were currently on duty each day. People’s dependency was reviewed regularly and staffing adjusted as necessary. Staff received all the necessary training their required to give them confidence in their role as well as the opportunity to meet with their line manager regularly to discuss their performance, progression or any training requirements. Staff were recruited through safe and robust recruitment practices.

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.

People received the medicines they required and no one raised any concerns about this aspect of their care. We saw people being given the medicines they required. Staff signed the person’s medicine administration record once they had seen the person take their medicines.

Staff were able to describe good medicines practices to us. For example, they explained the importance of following prescription information around people’s medicines such as making sure someone had their medicines 2 hours before food.

There were medicines processes in place. Only senior care staff who were competency assessed could administer medicines. When staff were dispensing and administering medicines they wore a red tabard to alert people and other staff not to disturb them. The registered manager carried out internal medicines audits and the pharmacy also completed their own audit of the practices within the service. Although these processes were in place and appeared robust, there was no formal procedure for checking first aid boxes within the service. We found items in the box situated in the senior carers office that were out of date.