We carried out a review of the data available to us about Parry House 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 Parry House, you can give feedback on this service.
Parry House is one of eight separate residential care homes within Purley Park Trust Estate. Parry House provides personal care and support for up to eight people who have learning disabilities and associated conditions, such as autistic spectrum disorders.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service:
People felt safe and comfortable living at the home. There was a calm atmosphere where staff were knowledgeable and skilled in supporting people with their routines, activities and behaviour.
There were safe systems in place to manage risks to people’s health and associated with the home environment. People were safeguarded from the risk of suffering abuse or avoidable harm.
People had access to healthcare services and input from specialist professionals when required. Their needs in relation to their personal care, nutrition and medicines were met.
People were able to have an input into their care planning and felt able to make complaints or give feedback about the quality of care. People had their dignity and privacy respected by staff who encouraged them to be as independent as possible.
The leadership of the home was experienced and competent. There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the home and the registered manager was aware of their regulatory responsibilities.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection:
The service was rated good at our last inspection (published 17 February 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.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Parry House is a residential care home which is registered to provide a service for up to eight people with learning disabilities. Some people had other associated difficulties including needing support with behaviours which could be distressing and/or harmful. There were eight people living in the home on the day of the visit, including one person who was in hospital. The service offered accommodation in a purpose built house which provided ground and first floor accommodation.
There is a registered manager running the service. 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 were kept as safe as possible from abuse and harm by staff who had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and health and safety policies and procedures. The staff team’s knowledge and understanding of how to keep people and themselves safe contributed to ensuring people lived in a safe and secure environment.
People, staff and visitor safety was further enhanced because general risks and risks to individuals were identified and managed. Staffing ratios ensured people were supported safely. The recruitment procedures were robust and made sure, that as far as possible, staff were safe and suitable to work with people. Medicines were given in the right amounts and at the right times by trained and competent staff.
People’s health and well-being needs were met by staff who responded to people’s changing needs. The service sought advice from and worked closely with health and other professionals to ensure they met people’s health and well-being needs.
Peoples’ human and civil rights were understood, and upheld by the staff and registered manager of the service. The service understood the relevance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and consent issues which related to the people in their care. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 legislation provides a legal framework that sets out how to act to support people who may not have capacity to do so. People were supported to make as many decisions and have as much control over their lives as they were able to.
People’s care was provided by kind and caring staff who were knowledgeable. Individualised care planning ensured staff used a person centred approach and people’s equality and diversity was always respected. The service was responsive to people and met their individual needs. People were given the opportunity to participate in a wide variety of activities that met their needs and preferences.
People received good care from a well led service. The registered manager was experienced and qualified and listened and responded to people, staff and others. The registered manager was described as approachable and always supportive. The quality of care the service provided was assessed, reviewed, improved and developed as necessary.
Parry House provides care and accommodation for up to eight people who have a learning disability. At the time of the inspection eight people were living at the home. The home is one of eight houses run by Purley Park Trust Limited on a site that includes day care facilities for people such as a club house and gardening project.
People told us they were satisfied with the service they received. A relative also told us the care was of a good standard and that the service promoted people’s independence. The relative said: “The freedom and care is beyond everything. My relative is looked after well and is always happy.”
We saw that people were involved in decisions and reviews about their care and leisure needs. Staff were observed to treat people with respect and acknowledged people’s choice as well as their independence.
Records showed that the service liaised with health care providers so that people received appropriate health care checks and treatment where needed. We spoke to two health and social care professionals who told us the service made appropriate referrals to them for any support and treatment for people.
Care records included details about how staff should support people with any behaviour needs and how to communicate with people. We observed staff interacting with people and people were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff were observed to deal with any behaviour needs by calmly redirecting people to more positive activities.
There were a number of activities provided for people and we observed people using the nearby club house or relaxing in the lounge. The service also provided activities outside the home.
The service had recently reviewed its staffing levels which had resulted in an increase from three to four staff between the hours of 0700 and 1430 from 21 April 2014. At the time of the inspection there were three staff on duty, which staff said was sufficient to meet people’s needs.
Staff were provided with a range of training which included first aid and the safeguarding of vulnerable adults as well as vocational qualifications such as the Diploma in Health and Social Care and /or the National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) in care.
Each person had their own bedroom with an en suite bathroom. People were able to maintain their privacy, security and independence by locking their bedroom door unless an assessment identified they were not safe to do this. The premises were well maintained and clean although we noted there were minor decorative defects such as plug holes in walls where shelves had been removed and two en suite bathroom floors were in need of additional cleaning.
The home had a registered manager who was in day to day control of the home.
We saw that people were encouraged to make decisions for themselves. Where people were unable to do this the service considered the person’s capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. At the time of the inspection there were no people subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) order.
Parry House provides care and accommodation for up to eight people who have a learning disability. At the time of the inspection eight people were living at the home. The home is one of eight houses run by Purley Park Trust Limited on a site that includes day care facilities for people such as a club house and gardening project.
People told us they were satisfied with the service they received. A relative also told us the care was of a good standard and that the service promoted people’s independence. The relative said: “The freedom and care is beyond everything. My relative is looked after well and is always happy.”
We saw that people were involved in decisions and reviews about their care and leisure needs. Staff were observed to treat people with respect and acknowledged people’s choice as well as their independence.
Records showed that the service liaised with health care providers so that people received appropriate health care checks and treatment where needed. We spoke to two health and social care professionals who told us the service made appropriate referrals to them for any support and treatment for people.
Care records included details about how staff should support people with any behaviour needs and how to communicate with people. We observed staff interacting with people and people were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff were observed to deal with any behaviour needs by calmly redirecting people to more positive activities.
There were a number of activities provided for people and we observed people using the nearby club house or relaxing in the lounge. The service also provided activities outside the home.
The service had recently reviewed its staffing levels which had resulted in an increase from three to four staff between the hours of 0700 and 1430 from 21 April 2014. At the time of the inspection there were three staff on duty, which staff said was sufficient to meet people’s needs.
Staff were provided with a range of training which included first aid and the safeguarding of vulnerable adults as well as vocational qualifications such as the Diploma in Health and Social Care and /or the National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) in care.
Each person had their own bedroom with an en suite bathroom. People were able to maintain their privacy, security and independence by locking their bedroom door unless an assessment identified they were not safe to do this. The premises were well maintained and clean although we noted there were minor decorative defects such as plug holes in walls where shelves had been removed and two en suite bathroom floors were in need of additional cleaning.
The home had a registered manager who was in day to day control of the home.
We saw that people were encouraged to make decisions for themselves. Where people were unable to do this the service considered the person’s capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. At the time of the inspection there were no people subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) order.
We saw that staff knew the people well and spent time with them encouraging them to make choices and promoting their independence.
Lunch time was a social occasion and people were offered a choice of healthy, nutritious food and drink. People’s care plans reflected their needs and we saw that these were met at the meal time.
Staff told us they felt supported. They said the training was “excellent” and one person said “there is always the opportunity to get specialist training if you need it.”
We saw that complaints were well recorded and investigated. Where possible they were resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant.
People we spoke with told us that 'staff were kind'. They told us they were treated with respect and were involved in the decisions made about the care and support they received.
People said that they could approach staff if they were worried or concerned.