Park View Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 45 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respected their privacy and dignity. Management practice was not always well considered and dignified. For example, we gave feedback that a person’s care plan needed updating to reflect their wishes around privacy and dignity when using the bathroom, as they were upset about staff disturbing them. The manager dismissed this concern, saying the person lacked capacity, rather than taking their wishes into consideration.

However, people and their relatives told us staff treated them with kindness, one person said, “The staff are lovely; they are like my family.” We observed some good interactions between staff and people evidencing they had built good relationships.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. For example, not everyone had a care plan based on their personal circumstances. This meant people could not be assured the things that mattered to them were known or promoted by staff. Not all care plans were written in a person-centred way nor did they contain details about people’s personal history and their likes and dislikes. A person told us, “I have told staff time and time again that I would like my bed made and also to collect my food tray before lunchtime. More often than not this is not done, these are important things to me.”

The provider did not always support people’s independence, choice and control over their care, treatment, and wellbeing. People were generally offered choices in their daily routines and could spend time where they preferred. However, we saw decisions were being made about people without the best practice guidelines being observed to ensure they remained at the centre of all decisions. This included people’s consent. In some cases, checks to see if the person could make their own decision called a Mental Capacity Assessment (MCA) were not done. If the person couldn’t decide, a Best Interest (BI) decision, where others decide what’s best for them was also not recorded. For example, installing equipment restricting people from having free movement around the home such as installing sensor mats or bed rails had not been completed. However, we did see people moving freely around Park view. One person said, “I like colouring, we get together with other residents and have a chat. We do chair exercises and yoga.” During our visit, a range of activities was offered. However, records showed some people, particularly those who stayed in their rooms, were not regularly involved in activities.

Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. When people presented with anxiety or distressing situations, the provider did not demonstrate an understanding approach to them. This was further evidenced by the inappropriate language used in written records such ‘attention seeking’. Records did not evidence how they could support the person to manage how they were feeling or express themselves openly. Staff were not always available to respond to people’s immediate needs and wishes. For example, we observed there was a lack of staff to assist people with personal care in a timely manner. Some people and relatives commented people had to wait for assistance. Their comments included, “Sometimes there are no members of staff in the lounge. There may be people who want to go to the toilet and there is no one around, they have lost a lot of staff. They have changed managers a lot.” Another person told us, “I fell in my room and I shouted for help, and they came quickly.”

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. For example, some staff were not given an opportunity through formal supervision to discuss in confidence their wellbeing or any matters relating to their work. Staff comments included, “To be honest I don’t feel supported at the moment” and “I feel like the workload has increased.” Staff did not feel listened to when they raised issues and said they were told by management to ‘get on with it.’ Some staff described being exhausted and overwhelmed. Staff supervision records lacked evidence to show support or promotion of staff wellbeing.