We carried out a review of the data available to us about Park House Nursing Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Park House Nursing Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The provider's visiting policy aligned with Government guidance on visiting arrangements in care homes. One member of staff each day was allocated to support with visiting. This staff member supported visitors with COVID-19 testing, PPE, completing relevant paperwork and escorting them safely to and from their family member’s bedroom.
The registered manager had assessed PPE ‘stations’ in the home to be a risk to people. Staff therefore had waist bags in which they carried they personal protective equipment (PPE) around with them. These were easily wipeable to maintain their cleanliness.
Staff used PPE in accordance with current Government guidance. Staff had completed training on how to keep people safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Infection prevention and control audits and spot checks were undertaken regularly to make sure staff were compliant with infection control procedures.
Park House Nursing Home is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 38 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 40 people over three floors in one adapted building.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People and their family members told us that the staff and culture at Park House Nursing Home were exceptionally caring. One person’s relative told us, “[Name] is well cared for and loved.” We saw that staff had very positive relationships with people, they took opportunities to enjoy spending time with them and promoting their dignity. People spoke highly of the care they received. Quotes included, “Amazing” “Excellent” and “I can’t speak highly enough.”
Staff had a high level of empathy for people, they were focused on people rather than tasks and kept people at the centre of everything they did; using their knowledge of each person to adapt their approach. One staff member said, “If somebody is down or upset, we should always have five minutes.” We saw people receive emotional support from staff that was kind and compassionate; such as a warm embrace, holding hands and giving reassurance when a person was anxious.
Each person had an individualised care plan that was regularly updated. These contained important details that enabled staff to be effective in providing person centred care. The care planning process dignified people, there was a focus on people’s achievements in their lives, their families, their trade or occupation.
People were listened to and staff at times discerned from people’s actions and wellbeing the views they wanted to express. One person’s family member said, “They have learned to listen to him from his actions. They know what he wants from what he does.”
There was a focus on people staying safe whilst remaining as independent as possible. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
One GP told us that the use of antipsychotic medication at the home had been reduced due to the quality of care people received, listening to and exploring people’s actions, the ethos of staff and the positive relationships they had with people. They told us, “The difference here is that people have more freedom.”
People living at the home, their family members and staff were all positive about the culture at the home. Staff told us that the culture guided and helped them to be effective in their roles. One staff member told us, “The manager has had a massive impact. They are open to ideas and staff opinions. Each person matters to her. I always feel listened to.” It was evident that both people living at the home had benefited from this culture.
The home was well maintained and tastefully decorated in a style that suited the building. There were different areas of interest and a variety of places to relax. The environment of the home was safe and well managed. There were regular thorough checks on the home’s maintenance and the services and equipment used in the building.
There were enough staff at the home to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. The registered manager regularly assessed the number of staff required. There were other systems in place that had been effective in helping them to ensure that the service provided was safe and of high quality.
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 8 March 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Park House Nursing Home provides accommodation, nursing and personal care for up to 40 people. At the time of our inspection there were 40 people living at the home.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 and associated regulations about how the service is run.
People had care that was person centred that maintained their health and wellbeing.
People were treated with dignity and respect. People had positive relationships with staff.
Staff were motivated and well supported with training to enable them to meet the individual needs of people living at the home. There were sufficient numbers of staff to ensure people were supported safely and people’s health needs responded to quickly. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines in line with their prescription.
People and relatives knew the registered manager and the provider. People felt that if they had any concerns they were able to speak with the registered manager or provider. People felt safe and knew how to raise concerns. The provider welcomed people's views and opinions and acted upon them.
Staff felt comfortable to raise any concerns about people’s safety and understood about how to keep people safe. Risk assessments were in place and action taken to reduce any risks. Staff supported people to take positive risks. Where risks had been identified risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to reduce the risk of harm.
People enjoyed the food and had the support they needed to enjoy their food and drinks safely. People were able to make choices about the food and drink they wanted. There was a choice of freshly prepared nutritious food and where additional monitoring and support was needed this was provided.
People's health needs were monitored and changes made to people's care in response to any changes in their needs. People had access to other health professionals and were referred to them by the registered manager if there were any concerns about their health needs.
There were a range of audits and checks to make sure that good standards of care and support were maintained. Feedback from people and relatives were gathered on a regular basis and where any actions were identified these were actioned quickly.
We carried out this inspection on 15 January 2015. The inspection was unannounced.
The provider is registered for accommodation and personal and nursing care for up to 40 people who may have a diagnosis of dementia. At the time of our inspection 36 people lived at the home.
A registered manager was in post. 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 lived at the home and relatives told us they felt safe with the staff. Staff we spoke with understood how to protect people from harm and knew who to contact if they had any concerns about people’s safety. We found there were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs and that safe recruitment practices were followed.
We found improvements were needed in the way people received their medicines to make sure they were administered safely and as prescribed.
Staff told us their training was up to date and we saw this was reflected in their practice and the environment. All of the staff felt their training and supervision supported and enabled them to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard.
People’s capacity to make decisions had been assessed and, for those people who lacked capacity, decisions were made in their best interests. People received care and support to meet their needs in the least restrictive way. Where restrictions were in place to ensure people were safe and their needs were met this had been assessed by the local authority in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
Staff monitored people’s health and shared information effectively to make sure people received advice from doctors, dieticians and the community mental health team, according to their needs. People had meals they liked with support from staff to meet their nutritional needs.
People told us the staff were kind and caring. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and they were supported to maintain their independence.
All the people we spoke with were satisfied staff cared for and supported them in the way they wanted. People’s care plans described their needs and abilities and were relevant to the risks identified in their individual risk assessments. This included enabling people to have fun and interesting things to do.
People’s complaints were responded to appropriately and action taken to drive through any improvements to the services people received as a result of complaints.
The provider had effective arrangements in place to support, guide and lead staff that enabled the quality of care and support people received was continually improved and consistent.
Those people who found it difficult to communicate with us, because of their dementia, all showed signs of positive wellbeing. We saw that staff had time to stop and chat with them and help them with their activities. We saw that people were treated respectfully and kindly. Staff took time to encourage them and explain what was happening. We saw that people's care had been planned with them or with their families if they were not able to contribute to the process. Written records provided information for staff so that people's safety was maintained. Relatives we spoke with gave very positive feedback about the care their loved ones received.
We found the home to be clean, and regular checks had been carried out to ensure the required standards of cleanliness and infection control.
Staff were aware of how to respond to any allegation of abuse in a way that safeguarded vulnerable adults.
The provider had effective recruitment procedures in place.
We spoke with one person living at the home and four visitors. We observed staff interaction with seven people using a tool designed for the Care Quality Commission. We spoke with four nursing and care staff and the owner. We looked at care records for three people, and medication records for five people. We saw records about staff, the running of the home and the provider's analysis of quality surveys, which were positive.
During our visit people were well cared for and had privacy. People were treated as individuals with sensitivity. Choice was offered and consent was sought before care or activities were provided. People and visitors said the food was very good, and people had support when they needed it to eat and drink.
Families were involved in care planning. Visitors told us: 'They really look after people well here'; 'The staff and manager answer any questions we have and sort out anything we ask for'; They offer visitors hospitality.'
Staff understood people's needs, felt well supported and had professional development for their roles. Equipment was kept in good working order, and staff had guidance and training to use equipment safely. There were systems in place to act on and learn from any incidents, comments or complaints.