7 and 8 October 2014
During a routine inspection
This inspection took place on 7 and 8 October 2014 and was unannounced.
At our previous inspection on 3 December 2013 the provider was not meeting the requirements of the law in relation to consent to care and treatment. Following the inspection the provider sent us an action plan to tell us they would make improvements by 28 February 2014. During this inspection we looked to see if these improvements had been made to meet the relevant requirement and we found that they had.
Park View Residential Home provides residential care for up to 30 older people who have a mental health diagnosis, such as schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder. Some people may also have a diagnosis of dementia. There were 25 people living at the service when we visited. The service comprised of four houses which were arranged into two sets of adjoining houses. People who lived in one set of houses had a higher level of dependency on staff support and people living in the second set of houses were more independent. The two sets of houses were joined and were part of the same service. Within each set of houses there were two communal lounges, a dining room and kitchen, there were some shared bedrooms. There was access between the two sets of houses via a communal rear garden. People were able to mix freely between the houses.
The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.
People were encouraged and supported to be as independent as they could. Staff understood people’s interests and preferences and enabled them to pursue them. Activities within the service and trips into the community were arranged in accordance with people’s expressed interests. People were supported by staff who treated them with dignity and demonstrated an interest in their welfare and views. People had a positive experience from the care they received.
Risks to people were identified with them. Plans to manage the identified risks were then agreed with people. The building and premises ensured people were safe from unauthorised people coming in but did not limit people’s freedom to come and go. Staff knew who had gone out and when they were expected to return. The impact of this for people was that they were safe but their freedom was not restricted by the service.
There were sufficient staff to support people safely and there was flexibility in staffing levels in the event that people were unwell and needed extra staff support. Staff had received training and supervision to enable them to support people effectively. Staff were encouraged to undertake relevant qualifications to enable them to provide people’s care effectively and were supported with career development.
People received their medication safely from trained staff who spoke with people about what medications they were prescribed and why they needed to take them. We identified one issue in relation to the storage of controlled drugs. The manager took prompt action to ensure that controlled drugs were stored in accordance with guidance and people were protected.
Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions for themselves staff had followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff had received relevant training. The manager understood their responsibilities in relation to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs) and was actively reviewing whether they needed to submit any applications for people to ensure they were not illegally deprived of their liberty.
People were offered a variety of nutritious meals and staff understood their preferences and requirements in relation to food. Where nutritional risks to people had been identified people were referred to the relevant professional and their guidance was followed. People’s nutritional needs were met.
People were supported to maintain good health. Risks to their health were identified and managed. The service had links with local services to ensure people’s mental health and physical health care needs were met.
Care plans had been written with people and regularly reviewed. Staff understood people’s care needs. This ensured written guidance was available to staff about people’s care needs.
People’s feedback on the service had been sought in different ways. There was a service user representative to represent people’s views and feedback in addition to regular resident’s meetings. When people identified issues with the service action was taken to address the concerns raised. People’s views had been heard and action taken.
People were relaxed in the service and able to speak freely with staff at all levels. The management and provider were visible and accessible to people. There were processes to monitor the quality of the service and evidence that learning took place from incidents. Changes had taken place as a result of this learning. People benefited from the open and clear leadership.