You are here

Park House Rest Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 27 May 2017

We carried out this comprehensive inspection on 22nd March 2017. This inspection followed three comprehensive inspections in December 2015, 19 & 20 May 2016, 11 and 14 November 2016. These inspections led us to follow our enforcement pathway. At each of the inspections since December 2015 we have noticed improvement in response to following our enforcement pathway and the provider is now in breach of just one regulation of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. We will continue to monitor the provider to ensure that improvements are sustained.

Park House Rest Home is a care home, which accommodates up to 18 older people, some living with dementia. On the day of our inspection 15 people were living at the home and one person was in hospital. We were advised five people were staying at the service on a respite basis.

The home 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.

There had been a history of non–compliance with the regulations at this service since we inspected in December 2015. Following the inspection we started our enforcement action. The subsequent two inspections and this inspection have helped to inform what action we should take in regards to our enforcement pathway. At this inspection we found the provider had made further progress with compliance against the regulations. There was one new breach found at this inspection.

Potential risks to people's safety had been identified and specific risk assessments showed how people should be supported to keep safe. Medicine records supported the safe administration of medicines. People received their medicines from trained care workers. Infection control audits were taking place on a regular basis but we identified some areas which had not been picked up these by these audits, which were of a concern. We also found some equipment in the home had been properly maintained.

There was sufficient staff deployed within the home with agency staff being used. The provider completed a range of recruitment checks to help ensure new care workers were suitable to work with the people living at the home. Staff felt supported in their roles and the training they received equipped them with the knowledge they needed to do their jobs.

The provider followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People had access to a range of health professionals, such as GPs, opticians, chiropodists and community nurses.

Care records included background information about each person including details of their care

preferences. People's needs had been assessed and personalised care plans written. Care plans were reviewed monthly to keep them up to date.

A complaints policy was in place and there had been two complaint’s since the last inspection, which had been investigated.

We were informed the management were visible and there was a range of quality assurance audits were in place.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 1 November 2017

Risks associated with the environment were not being effectively managed. The manager has now taken action to address these.

People and their families told us they felt safe living at the home and risks were managed appropriately. Recruiting practices were safe.

Staff had a good understanding of infection control procedures and people told us the home was kept clean.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 May 2017

The service was effective

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005[, which meant they promoted people's rights and followed least restrictive practice.

Staff received a range of training and support which enabled them to do their job safely and effectively.

People had a choice and enjoyed their meals.

People had access to health and social care professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 May 2017

The service was caring.

Staff had developed good relationships with people living at the home.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 May 2017

The service was responsive.

People received care which was personalised and met their needs.

The service had a complaints procedure and complaints were investigated.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 1 November 2017

Staff felt supported by the new manager.

Audits were undertaken but these were not being fully effective in driving improvements.