Park View Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence the provider met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 50 (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 notalways make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Some people’s care records lacked information about people’s current needs and how they wished them to be met. For example, one person told us they had a daily routine to be taken to their room to rest after lunch but always had to ask to be taken there and sometimes had to wait for staff to be available. However, some people’s records showed how people and their relatives were involved in developing and reviewing their care plans. For example, one person’s faith was respected in relation to their dietary needs. This was recorded in their care plan, and the kitchen staff were aware and followed this guidance.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. For example, in one part of the home, some staff told us they hadn’t worked there before and didn’t know the people well. A healthcare professional commented, “During our meetings, staff often do not have the correct information regarding residents. Staff will say, ‘I don’t work on this floor’ or ‘I haven’t been on this floor for months’.” The provider assured us they had already picked up on these issues and were working to implement a simpler way to work. People and their relatives told us they received care appropriate to their needs.

People did not consistently have people’s communication preferences assessed. This resulted in staff not working in a consistent way when supporting and communicating with them. We saw one person had a number of drinks left out for them, staff were consistently bringing in drinks but not communicating with the person to alert them they had a drink by their bedside table. Staff member failed to provide any information to the person on what was in the drink and they failed to offer the person any choice. However, we observed a person was supported to communicate using a writing board and staff communicated effectively with the person using this tool. The activities schedule was displayed for people in different formats such as easy read.

The provider did not always listen to people about their care, treatment and support. People and relatives felt they could talk with any staff member or the management team if they wanted to. However, people’s response to raising concerns or giving feedback differed. A person commented, “I would speak to the manager. I haven’t really had the need to complain.” A relative told us, “You just don’t see as many staff as there used to be. At the relatives meeting, we asked that the residents should always have a member of staff in the lounge, and they agreed but I have been in and there were no staff there. Some residents are visually impaired, and one is falling all the time they should not be left on their own.” This inconsistency in how people and their relatives were treated did not give confidence people at Park View would be listened to or receive a positive and consistent response when they raised concerns. There was a process to record and investigate concerns and complaints.

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider did not work effectively with health and social care professionals to support good access to services or make necessary adjustments to ensure fair access for everyone. For example, we saw some people had not had their prescribed medication for a number of days due to communication issues with the pharmacy. The provider did not utilise other options such as requesting the prescription from out of hours services such as NHS111 who are able to support with these issues. One healthcare professional commented, “Medication will be prescribed after acute visits and will not be collected from pharmacy or commenced. People have become more unwell because antibiotics have not been started and then resulted in hospital admission. We have to raise a safeguard as a result.” The provider was aware of this issue and joined a new pharmacy to avoid these issues occurring.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. For example, there were delays in people receiving their prescribed medication due to issues with communications with the pharmacy or a delay in communicating medication changes to other staff. This meant people did not get their prescribed medication timely. We spoke with the provider who informed us they had moved to a new pharmacy and things were improving.

Although people were supported to plan for important life changes, including at the end of their life, we received conflicting information from staff about people who were in the stages of end of life care. Through reviewing records and speaking to other healthcare professionals, Park view had people who were at the end stages of their lives, however some staff stated did not have knowledge of this. We reviewed staff training records; not all staff had completed end of life training which meant some staff did not have the right skills on how to support people at the end of their lives. Some people had plans in place that included their future wishes, such as whether they wanted to go to hospital if their health got worse.