Park View Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

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

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to need for consent. Improvements were not found at this assessment, and the service remained in breach of this regulation. The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation need for consent.

This service scored 46 (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 make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People's needs were not always properly assessed, recorded or planned for. For example, one person with a respiratory condition did not have care records detailing appropriate interventions if their health declined, putting them at risk. Additionally, some individuals known to experience periods of distress lacked guidance in their care plans to help staff provide effective support.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. For example, managers and staff did not always follow recognised guidance for monitoring and managing skin breakdown. People’s pressure mattress settings were not always correctly set in accordance with their weight placing them at risk of skin damage. Pressure mattresses need to be set to match a person's weight so staff can provide the right level of support.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs with other health care professionals. People were not always supported by an effective team. For example, lack of consistent leadership had a negative impact on team cohesion, effective communication and coordination within their own staff team and team development. A staff member said, “I have gone to the manager to ask for support but you don’t get anything back. I understand they are new but there is no support at all. It’s overwhelming.” Visiting professionals provided mixed feedback about the service. Comments included, “We contact the home twice per week to find out about new admissions, returns from hospital or changes in the home. These emails are often not responded to and I will only find out about new admissions by chance or even after they have been there a few weeks. This has been escalated a few times but is still a persisting issue. And “New managers do seem keen and engaged to make changes and they recognise improvements need to be made. For instance, there was an issue when correspondence regarding all patients was going to one email address, so things would often be missed. The new managers have implemented different email addresses one per floor to lessen this risk.”

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and well-being effectively. People were not always referred to additional services in a timely manner when needed. Healthcare professionals working with the team at Park View raised concerns about delays in seeking specialist input for some individuals. However, People at risk of choking were assessed by speech and language therapist (SALT), and their care plan was updated with any changes following the assessment. Catering staff were updated about any changes to ensure people at risk of weight loss got the right support. Meals were varied and prepared in the right way for people. People told us they had access to routine medical appointments. One person said, “I have seen the doctor that is associated with this home who comes in every week to check on us or if there is an emergency. I also see a chiropodist for my feet when I need one and Specsavers come in here to check eyes.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure outcomes were positive and consistent, and met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Care delivery and staff practices were not always aligned to people’s care records which meant there were missed opportunities to improve people’s everyday lives. For example, we observed one person stayed in their bedroom throughout the day; they told us they were bored and would like to be moved to the lounge to engage with others, but staff tended to leave them in their bedroom. The manager assured us this request will be put in their care plan and shared with staff

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. For example, mental capacity assessments for people had not been completed when required. Those that were completed lacked sufficient detail about the person’s ability to consent to their care and treatment. There was a lack of clear records regarding how best interest decisions were made for people who lacked capacity.

People’s right to consent was not always respected. For example, information about a person’s wishes was recorded in their care plan without their consent. For example, one person did not want to discuss end-of-life matters. However, a document known as a DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) was completed and recorded without their consent. Therefore, consent wasn’t obtained from the person.