You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

This unannounced inspection took place on 2 and 15 May 2018.

South Park Residential Home is a ‘care home‘. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home does not provide any nursing care and specialises in supporting older people living with dementia. The care home can accommodate up to 11 people on either a permanent or temporary 'respite' basis in one adapted building across two floors. At the time of our inspection there were ten people permanently residing at the home who were all living with dementia.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC. Registered managers like registered providers 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.

At the last comprehensive inspection of this care home in February 2017 we continued to rate them 'Requires Improvement' overall and for the three key questions 'Is the care home safe', 'effective' and 'well-led?'. This was because we found the provider had failed to appropriately check the suitability and ‘fitness’ of new staff, ensure staff were suitably trained and supported to carry out their duties and effectively manage and scrutinise the quality and safety of the service people living in the home received.

We undertook a focussed inspection in July 2017 and found the provider had followed their action plan to improve and met their legal requirements. However, we continued to rate the service 'Requires Improvement' overall because we wanted to be sure they could maintain what they had achieved over a more sustained period of time. In addition, we identified issues with their fire safety arrangements. Specifically, we found fire safety equipment used in the home was not always appropriately maintained, staff did not routinely participate in fire evacuation drills and fire safety risks were not always identified and mitigated.

At this comprehensive inspection we found the service continued to improve. We saw the provider had taken appropriate action to resolve the fire safety issues we identified at their last inspection. Specifically, we saw fire safety risk assessments were in place, staff had completed their fire safety training and they routinely participated in fire evacuation drills. In addition, we found the provider continued to appropriately check the suitability and ‘fitness’ of new staff, ensured staff were appropriately trained and supported and operated effective governance systems. We have therefore improved the service’s overall rating from ‘Requires Improvement’ to ‘Good’ and for most of the key questions, ‘Is the service safe, effective, caring and well-led?’

However, the service’s rating for one key question, ‘Is the service responsive’, has deteriorated from 'Good' to 'Requires Improvement'. This is because people did not have sufficient opportunities to follow their social interests and take part in meaningful recreational activities inside the home or in the wider community. We received mixed feedback from people living in the home, their relatives, professional representatives and staff about the availability of fulfilling social activities in the home. People were not engaged in particularly meaningful activities throughout our inspection. We recommend the service seek advice and guidance from a reputable source, about developing a more structured and dementia friendly programme of social activities which is based on the interests of people living in the home.

In addition, although people when they were nearing the end of their life received compassionate and supportive care at the home, people’s care plans did not contain a section th

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

The service has improved from 'Requiring Improvement' to 'Good' and is now considered safe. This is because the provider has significantly improved their fire safety arrangements and continues to carry out robust staff recruitment checks.

There were robust procedures in place to safeguard people from harm and abuse. Staff were familiar with how to recognise and report abuse.

The provider assessed and managed risks to people’s safety in a way that considered their individual needs.

There remains enough staff suitably deployed in the care home to keep people safe.

The provider had assessments and management plans in place to minimise possible risks to people, this included infection control and food handling measures. The care home was clean, free from odours and was appropriately maintained.

Medicines continue to be managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

The service has improved from 'Requiring Improvement' to 'Good' and is now considered effective. This is because the provider now ensures staff are suitably trained and supported. This meant staff had the right knowledge and skills to meet people's assessed needs, preferences and choices.

People and their relatives felt the care home was a comfortable place to live and we saw the provider continued to improve the interior décor of the home. However, the environment could be made more dementia friendly and therefore we recommended the provider seeks the relevant guidance and research on the design of the environment for people living with dementia.

The registered manager was knowledgeable about and adhered to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their dietary needs. They also received the support they needed to stay healthy and well. People also had access to relevant health care professionals and services as and when they required.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

The service is caring and remains rated 'Good' for this key question.

People, their relatives and professional representatives all told us staff who worked at the home remained kind, caring and respectful.

Staff continued to be thoughtful and considerate when delivering care to people. They ensured people’s right to privacy and to be treated with dignity was maintained, particularly when receiving personal care.

People were supported to do as much as they could and wanted to do for themselves.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 9 June 2018

Some aspects of the service were not responsive and therefore their rating for this key question has deteriorated from 'Good' to 'Requires Improvement'.

This was because people did not have sufficient opportunities to follow their social interests and take part in meaningful recreational activities inside the home or in the wider community. We recommended the service reviews their social activities arrangements.

When people were nearing the end of their life, they received compassionate and supportive care at the home. However, end of life information in people’s care plans was not always available and staff had not received any end of life training. We discussed these issues with the registered manager who agreed to review their end of life care arrangements.

People were involved in discussions and decisions about their care and support needs and care plans were routinely reviewed.

People had an up to date, personalised care plans, which set out how staff should meet their care and support needs. This meant people were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their individual needs, preferences and interests.

People and relatives knew how to make a complaint if they were dissatisfied with the service they received. The provider had arrangements in place to deal with people's concerns and complaints in an appropriate way.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

The service has improved from 'Requiring Improvement' to 'Good' and is now considered well-led. This is because the provider continued to ensure the effective management and scrutiny of the service.

The home had a suitably experienced and qualified registered manager in post.

The provider routinely gathered feedback from people living in the home, their relatives and professional representatives. This feedback alongside the provider’s own audits and quality assurance checks was used to continually assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service they provided.

The provider also worked in close partnership with various external health and social professionals and bodies.