The Padova

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 assessed three Quality Statements in the Safe Key Question. There was a positive open culture in which concerns about safety were listened to, safety events were reported, investigated and lessons learnt to identify where improvements were required. Although care documentation and reviews did not always contain enough detail in the way people’s risk were managed, the actions in place were appropriate. As part of the assessment we looked at staffing levels to ensure effective, safe care was being provided which met people’s individual’s needs.

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.

People told us they felt safe. One individual said, “Yes, I do feel safe here – I have everything I need.”

Staff had received training on safeguarding and understood they needed to act quickly if any safeguarding concern was raised. Staff told us they would contact the registered manager immediately for advice and action to be taken. They said the registered manager was always available. The registered manager had recently worked closely with the local authority to ensure the safety of people.

People were calm and relaxed in the company of staff. They sought out staff to talk to and to spend time with. It was clear from our observations staff knew people well, and there was a positive and welcoming atmosphere in the home.

Staff had information on the safeguarding and referral system. Safeguarding and whistle blowing information was available in easy-read format in the hallway and contained the emergency contact number for the local authority to refer any safeguarding concern to. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and how to raise concerns and the safeguarding policy had been updated to reflect latest guidance and contact details. There was a file which contained staff statements relating to recent safeguarding allegations. This was kept securely in the registered manager’s office. The statements contained dates and times and we saw evidence safeguarding investigations had been carried out in response to recent concerns.

People told us they were involved in all aspects of their care. We saw people had contributed to their care records and assessment of decision-making capacities form, which was a document people had contributed to which detailed their personal preferences. Each form had a section titled ‘assessment summary’ which listed the decisions which the person had difficulty in making and the degree of difficulty. These forms also contained pictures of the person and different activities they liked doing.

Staff understood people had varied risks that impacted on their health and wellbeing. These were assessed and managed according to individual need. For example, one person was at high risk of falls and staff were aware of recent incidents where the person had sustained a fall. Staff made improvements to the person’s room by installing a grab rail. Another person was on modified fluids as they had difficulty swallowing and staff showed us how they made drinks for them safely while promoting choice. Staff told us “They live well here – they go out and do lots of activities. It is like a family here.”

For those people who had risks associated with eating we saw suitable measures were in place to reduce these risks. For example, people had adapted meals and staff were available to support safe eating and reduce any risk of choking. We observed a staff member sitting with people during lunch and having a conversation with them, everyone was joking and laughing together.

Documentation supporting risk management was kept up to date and risk assessments about care were person-centred, proportionate, and regularly reviewed with the person, however the review dates were not always clearly found as they were written on the back of the hand-written document. This meant, anyone who read the document would need to also read the back of the page to see the updates. This could lead to misunderstandings of people’s current care and support needs. Care documentation sometimes lacked detail. For example, in one person’s care documentation it stated the person needed assistance but there was no detail on what was meant by this, or the level of support required. However, there was no impact to the person because of this. The registered manager told us they were working to move to a digital care documentation system soon. We saw people’s finances were managed safely and in line with the provider’s policy.

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 said there were enough staff with appropriate skills to respond to their specific care needs. One person said, “There are always enough staff, never short staffed here.”

Staff told us there were enough staff to support people in a safe way. There was a strong team spirit that supported staff cohesion and effective staffing of the service. Staff said, “We have enough staff, and the manager will always come and help if needed. There is always a staff member around”. Another staff member said, “I am happy, I love it here, I wouldn’t change it for the world.” Staff said they had access to good quality training which was a mixture of online and face to face training. Staff were aware of upcoming Safeguarding training. However, induction records were not always clearly documented in staff files, and some staff we spoke with told us they hadn’t had any formal induction, only shadowing. One staff member, who was working as a domestic, told us they hadn’t had any Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) training, and this was addressed with the registered manager who was going to ensure this was actioned.

People’s needs were attended to in a timely way. Staff had time to interact and chat with people. Staff were observed during the lunch time meal to be sitting with people and chatting with them. People were engaged with the staff, and it was a homely atmosphere. Staff were observed being present and supporting people to access the kitchen to prepare their own drinks and snacks.

A duty rota was used to plan staffing and to notify staff of their working hours. The rota confirmed staffing numbers were maintained. The registered manager told us the staffing arrangements were reviewed regularly, and additional staff were deployed if people were in hospital. It was a policy of the service if a person was in hospital, a staff member was deployed during the day to stay with them. Staff were recruited safely. Appropriate checks were completed to ensure staff were suitable to work at the service. This included, references, Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and employment histories. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. However, staff recruitment records did not include pictures of the staff member or confirmation of review of identity documentation. Training for staff included mandatory training and additional skills to meet the needs of people who live at The Padova Training was refreshed regularly, and audits and checks were carried out by the Registered Manager to ensure staff kept up to date with their training. Performance management checks for staff were in place.

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.