• Care Home
  • Care home

ParkHouse Grange

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

47 Park Road, Earl Shilton, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE9 7EP (01455) 851222

Provided and run by:
A L A Care Limited

All Inspections

14 July 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Parkhouse Grange is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 40 people. Accommodation is provided within a purpose built environment across two floors. At the time of our inspection there were 30 people using the service, many of whom were living with dementia.

People's experience of using this service and what we found

Risks associated with people's care, needs and the environment had been assessed and were kept under continual review to ensure measures were effective. Sufficient numbers of staff were deployed to meet people's needs and provide safe care.

Systems were in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse. Medicines were managed safely. We were assured staff followed safe infection prevention and control procedures. Current government guidance was being followed to support visitors into the home, and to enable people to participate in visits.

There were robust systems in place that were operated effectively by the registered manager to check the quality and safety of the services provided and to monitor the quality of care. People and relatives felt engaged and involved in how their care was provided and consulted about changes within the service provision. Staff felt they could share their views and were supported in their roles. The registered manager was committed to providing care that achieved the best possible outcomes for people.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (Published 30 July 2019)

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part by concerns around infection prevention and control and staffing. We undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only. We found no evidence during our inspection to support the concerns or that people had been harmed.

We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has remained good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Parkhouse Grange on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

21 June 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

Parkhouse Grange is a residential care home providing accommodation for up to 40 older people some of whom are living with dementia and/or physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection 36 people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

The home had a warm and friendly atmosphere. People liked living there and got on well with the staff. Relatives were made welcome and said they would recommend the home to others. The registered manager and staff were kind and approachable. They listened to people and involved them in the running of the home.

The staff team was established and knowledgeable about people’s needs. They knew their likes, dislikes and preferences and what made them happy. If a person was distressed staff provided them with comfort and reassurance. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

Staff knew how to care for and support people safely. There were enough staff employed to meet people’s needs promptly. Staff supported people with their medicines and ensured they had them on time. The home was well-decorated, clean and tidy, and staff were trained in infection control.

People’s needs were assessed, and care plans put in place, so staff knew how to support them in the way they wanted. Staff were well-trained and able to meet people’s diverse needs. People liked the food served at the home and had plenty of choice at mealtimes. Staff worked with healthcare professionals, for example GPs and district nurses, to ensure people’s medical needs were met.

People took part in a range of group and one-to-one activities arranged by the home’s activity co-ordinator. The home had pets and people enjoyed looking after them. The home has its own social media page which people, relatives and staff contributed to.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated Good. (Report published 18 November 2016.)

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor this service and plan to inspect in line with our reinspection schedule for services rated Good. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

17 October 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection visit took place on 17 October 2016 and was unannounced.

ParkHouse Grange is a residential care home providing accommodation for up to 40 people. The home is purpose built with accommodation on two floors. People have use of four communal lounges, a summer house and garden. At the time of our inspection 36 people used the service.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People who used the service were safe. They were supported and cared for by staff that had been recruited under recruitment procedures that ensured only staff that were suited to work at the service were employed. Staff understood and discharged their responsibilities for protecting people from abuse and avoidable harm.

People’s care plans included risk assessments of activities associated with their personal care and support routines. The risk assessments provided information for care workers that enabled them to support people safely but without restricting their independence.

Enough suitably skilled and knowledgeable staff were deployed to meet the needs of the people using the service. At the time of our inspection the service was using agency care staff to ensure enough staff were available to support people with their needs. An agency staff almost put a person at risk but for a timely intervention by permanent staff.

People were supported to receive the medicines by staff who were trained in medicines management. Medicines were stored safely, but temperature checks of storage areas were not consistently carried out.

Care workers were supported through supervision and training. People who used the service told us told us they felt staff were well trained and competent.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2015. Staff had awareness of the MCA and understood they could provide care and support only if a person consented to it and if the proper safeguards were put in place to protect their rights. There were people at ParkHouse Grange who were being cared for under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Staff understood the importance of people having healthy diets and eating and drinking well. They supported people at meal times to have their meals. They also supported people to access health services when they needed them.

People were involved in decisions about their care and support. They received the information they needed about the service and about their care and support.

People told us they were treated with dignity and respect. The registered manager actively promoted values of compassion and kindness in the service. They were a `dementia friend’ and `dignity champion’.

People contributed to the assessment of their needs and to reviews of their care plans. Their care plans were centred on their individual needs. People knew how to raise concerns if they felt they had to and they were confident they would be taken seriously by the provider. When people expressed preferences about their care and support these were acted upon by the service.

The service had effective arrangements for monitoring the quality of the service. These arrangements included asking for people’s feedback about the service and a range of checks and audits. The provider carried out weekly visits to ParkHouse Grange to monitor the quality of service. The quality assurance procedures were used to identify and implement improvements to people’s experience of the service.

27th April 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 27 April 2015 and was unannounced.

At our last inspection on 27 June 2014 the service was meeting the regulations.

ParkHouse Grange provides accommodation and care for up to 40 people. On the day of our visit there were 27 people at the service. Accommodation is arranged over two floors and there was a passenger lift to assist people to get to the upper floor.

There should be a registered manager at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. At the time of our inspection there was a manager in post but they were not actually registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service, although they previously had been. During our visit the manager started the registration process.

Staff had a good understanding of the various types of abuse and were aware of their responsibilities under safeguarding. Staff felt able to raise any concerns and were aware of how they were able to escalate concerns if appropriate action had not been taken.

Risks associated with people’s care were identified and control measures had been put in place to reduce the risks.

There were appropriate policies and procedures in place to ensure that medicines were managed safely. There were personal emergency evacuation plans and transfer notes available should a foreseeable emergency situation arise.

Staff received training and supervision to enable them to carry out their roles. Staff felt supported in their roles and able to approach the manager with any concerns.

People’s capacity to consent to their care and treatment had been considered but this had not always been recorded and documented in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) is legislation used to protect people who might not be able to make informed decisions on their own about the care and support they received.

People were provided with a balanced diet that met their dietary requirements. Health professionals were involved as required in people’s care.

People told us that staff were caring in their approach. We observed staff supporting people without explaining who they were, what they were doing or why. People were moved in their wheelchairs without any explanation of what was happening, where they were going to and people were supported with their meals without any explanation of what they were going to have to eat or the help that was being offered.

People’s needs were assessed and care plans put in place to ensure that their needs were met. Activities that took place did not always take into consideration people’s abilities and needs. There were limited activities available and only a small number of people chose to participate.

Regular audits were undertaken and any concerns that were identified were addressed. Quality assurance audits were carried out and regular meetings held with staff, people that used the service and their relatives.

2 July 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection was carried out by a CQC inspector. We spoke with six people who lived at the service and four visiting relatives. We gained information about the service from reviews of care records and discussions with two managers, a senior care worker and two care workers. Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People who used the service and relatives we spoke with told us they trusted the managers and staff. One person told us, 'I feel safe here.' Another said, 'I wouldn't leave my (relative) if I didn't trust the staff.'

Staff we spoke with knew how to recognise signs of vulnerability and abuse and had received training in the protection of vulnerable adults. Records we looked at showed the service managed concerns about people's safety effectively in consultation with health and social care professionals, people's families and if required the local safeguarding authorities.

We looked at systems to ensure people's health and safety including the management of water safety, fire risk and crisis evacuation planning. We saw effective systems were in place and were monitored and reviewed on a regular basis.

Records showed the service monitored and reviewed any accidents people experienced in order to reduce the likelihood of similar problems occurring.

Managers we spoke with understood their legal duty and knew how to refer people who might have been at risk of receiving inappropriate care, for independent assessment under a law called the Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards (DoLS).

Is the service effective?

People and their relatives told us they were happy with the service provided. One person said, 'I can now walk.' This person told us this was because of the support and encouragement they had received from staff. One relative told us staff were, 'Always very good' in supporting their relatives care needs. Another said staff cared for their relative, 'Just the way I would do.'

We saw people's plans of care were clear and well written. Staff we spoke with told us they were easy to understand and helped them to provide safe and effective care.

Staff told us about people's assessed needs and plans of care. We saw from records and observations that staff delivered care effectively in ways described in plans of care. One relative told us about the importance of cleanliness and tidiness to their relative who lived at the care home. They highlighted their satisfaction that these standards were maintained with routine practical help from care staff.

Records including completed survey questionnaires showed staff worked well with doctors, community nurses and social workers to ensure people's health and care needs were met and reviewed regularly.

Relatives we spoke with said they were always consulted about important issues and felt staff and managers were approachable and helpful.

Is the service caring?

We observed staff offering people respectful and patient support and care. One relative told us, 'The girls are lovely and gentle.' A person who received a service told us, 'They're good to you here.'

Staff and managers we spoke with told us about the importance of respect and dignity for the people they supported. One relative told us they believed, 'People are more important than anything else.' This person was referring to care service staff and managers at the service.

Throughout our inspection visit we observed warm and courteous interaction from staff towards the people they cared for and visiting relatives.

We saw from records and observations that staff sought people's opinions and consent about the care they offered.

Is the service responsive?

Visiting relatives told us the service contacted them promptly about any problems or issues they needed to discuss. One person told us staff had responded to their relatives need for healthcare support by calling the GP quickly and informing them of the issue promptly.

Staff told us about work they did to identify and address changes in people's care needs. We saw that plans of care were regularly reviewed and changed to better meet the person's needs.

We looked at daily records of care provided and diary appointments in relation to people's support needs. We saw that information was effectively shared between staff on duty and staff on the following shift.

We looked at records of meetings between managers and staff and between managers, people who used the service and their families. We noted problems and ideas to improve the service were discussed. Relatives told us issues they had raised had been effectively addressed by the service and we saw records that showed the service regularly reviewed people's health and safety and the effectiveness of the way they worked.

Is the service well-led?

Records we looked at showed staff received appropriate training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge required to do their job. We noted the service applied for and received awards for their work and learning in relation to dignity in care.

Managers told us about work they were doing to improve the skills and morale of care staff. These included creative initiates to recognise and value staff and to better understand the experience of people who used the service.

Managers sought the views and opinions of people who used the service, their families and health and social care professionals involved in supporting people. We saw regular meetings with people took place and agreed decisions and actions were clearly recorded.

We saw records of regular monthly audits were carried out to ensure the quality of care and health and safety systems were maintained and improved.

We noted some systems, including maintenance and repair records and the recording and management of complaints, required evaluation and review to ensure improvement.

Managers and staff we spoke with told us they enjoyed their work. Staff attitudes and behaviours we observed indicated competence, a commitment to care and a pride in providing respectful and effective care for people.

22 April 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people using the service, three relatives and two visitors. We also spoke to four staff members.

We found people were able to make informed decisions about their care and support. One person told us the care staff are 'very nice and kind. They always respect me and explain things to me before doing anything.'

We found people experienced care and support that met their needs and protected their rights. We found people's care needs had been assessed. Care and support was delivered in a way that met people's needs and ensured their safety and welfare.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. We found the provider had robust systems in place relating to the management of medicines.

We found there was a clear and up to date recruitment procedure in place that was followed by the service. This meant that people were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

We found systems were in place to regularly obtain people's views about the care and service they receive. We found the provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service.

16 May 2012

During a routine inspection

Some people living at Parkhouse Grange had limited communication and were unable to answer direct questions about some of the essential standards we reviewed. We did speak with people in a general way and asked some questions. We observed people and their interactions with each other and with staff.

We saw people sitting in the lounges with their visitors, listening to taped music, and some staff sitting with people chatting quietly or holding their hands. Staff told us they were planning the Queen's Jubilee celebrations with people living at Parkhouse Grange. They were making decorations and bunting for a garden party for people and their families.

Two people told us,

'I am well looked after and like the view from my bedroom, staff are wonderful to me.'

'I am quite satisfied and have no complaints.'

5 May 2011 and 23 September 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We spoke with seven people living at the home and some relatives visiting and received very positive comments about service user's care and treatment and support.

People told us about how much they valued the care and support staff gave them. They told us,

'Staff go the extra mile to help you.'

'Food is freshly cooked, lovely soups. No rubbish served.'

'I watch them dust the surfaces, hoover and wash the sink in my bedroom every day.'

People who use services also told us they felt safe and well looked after by staff at the home. They also felt confident to speak to the registered manager.

We saw staff treat people with respect at all times, in the manner they spoke with and how they supported people. Staff were patient, offered choices and encouraged people to make decisions about daily routines and the activities going on around them.

The visit was very positive across many of the outcome areas checked. There were unpleasant odours identified in some parts of the home which we are told will be addressed immediately. Quality monitoring although evident was not robust enough. Improvements in both these areas will ensure safe quality care, treatment and support due to effective management decision making.