Park House Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment this key question was rated requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has improved to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. There was a positive atmosphere and culture in the care home which focused on effective care and support for people. The care and support we observed being delivered was extremely person-centred.

The registered manager was inclusive and understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Staff had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to deliver care and support effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty. The registered manager knew every person who lived in the care home, they were kind and caring and went the extra mile to support people and staff on a personal level. One person said, “I can talk to anyone, the manager, the staff they are always very approachable.” One staff member said, “The manager is brilliant, they are accommodating and listen to you.”

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Policies and processes were in place to support staff to speak up if they had concerns. Staff confirmed they were confident to speak up if they had concerns about the quality of care. One staff member said, “We work as a team, working well together, we have time for people and can give personalised care.”

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. There was a learning culture in the care home. Staff were aware of procedures to follow to report and record incidents. We saw that accidents and incidents were reviewed and analysed to identify themes and trends. Feedback to the staff team was provided through team meetings and discussions.

The manager had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and governance. However, we identified some audits had not identified shortfalls we found. These included IPC and medicines. The registered manager explained that they were without a deputy manager at present and had staff sickness, which had impacted the governance. The provider had employed an administration assistant who had commenced employment the week of our site visit. The registered manager said this would help free up their time enabling them to prioritise to ensure governance was improved. The issues we identified were addressed immediately by the registered manager, new systems were going to be implemented. These systems would then require embedding into practice.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. There was a learning culture in the care home. Staff were aware of procedures to follow to report and record incidents. We saw that accidents and incidents were reviewed and analysed to identify themes and trends. Feedback to the staff team was provided through team meetings and discussions.

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local systems. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. There were regular staff meetings where the registered manager provided feedback about care and support and where additional improvement and focus was required to ensure care was maintained at a good standard. Although we found issues with some aspects of governance, the registered manager took immediate action, learned lessons from the findings and implemented new systems and more robust processes to ensure the errors were not repeated and best practice becomes embedded into routine.