Archived: Parkview Residential Care Home

Updated 23 November 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 20 July 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector.

Prior to this inspection we reviewed information we held about the service including statutory notifications that had been submitted. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We contacted the local authority that commissioned the service to obtain their views.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

People who used the service, that were present at the time we visited, had difficulty in communicating verbally. They used gestures and body language to express their views. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people living in the service. We observed how the staff interacted with people who used the service. We also observed how people were supported during individual tasks and activities. We spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager, the behavioural manager, two senior care staff and two support workers to determine whether the service had robust quality systems in place.

We reviewed care records relating to two people who used the service and five staff records that contained information about, induction, training, supervisions and appraisals. We visited the organisation’s day care facility to talk with staff and observe day care activities taking place. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service including quality audits.

Updated 23 November 2015

This inspection took place on 20 July 2015 and was unannounced.

Parkview Residential Care Home provides care and support for up to five people with autistic spectrum disorder who have a learning disability. The service does not provide nursing care. There were five people using the service when we visited.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Staff were trained in how to protect people from abuse and harm. They knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to use the whistleblowing procedure. We found that whistleblowing had happened in practice at the service and had been dealt with appropriately.

Risk assessments were centred on the needs of the individual and included risks posed when people were out in the community. Staff followed clear guidance to reduce identified risks and protect people from harm.

Staffing arrangements meant that people received one to one care to meet their specific needs.

There were safe recruitment procedures in place. All staff were subject to a probation period and to disciplinary procedures if they did not meet the required standards of practice.

Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely and correctly. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and maintained relevant records that were accurate.

Record demonstrated that all of the staff received regular training in mandatory subjects. In addition, we saw that specialist training specific to the needs of people using the service had been completed. This had provided staff with the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs in an effective and individualised way.

People’s consent to care and treatment was sought in line with current legislation. All staff and management were trained in the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and were knowledgeable about the requirements of the legislation.

A flexible approach to mealtimes was used to ensure people could access suitable amounts of food and drink that met their individual preferences.

Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and liaised with their GP and other healthcare professionals as required.

Staff communicated effectively with people, responded to their needs promptly and treated them with kindness and compassion.

Throughout our visit we saw examples of creative care that helped make the service a place where people felt included and consulted.

People were able to spend private time in quiet areas when they chose to. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and maintained at all times.

People’s needs were comprehensively assessed and care plans gave clear guidance on how people were to be supported. Care was personalised so that each person’s support reflected their preferences.

People were at the heart of the service. People were supported to attend a range of educational

and occupational activities as well as being able to develop their own independent living skills. Staff supported people to undertake a choice of leisure activities within the home and in the community. The service provided its own day care service and people had been involved in its development.

The service had an effective complaints procedure in place. Staff were responsive to people’s anxieties and concerns and acted promptly to resolve them.

The service was well-led with systems to check that the care of people was effective, the staffing levels sufficient, and staff appropriately trained so they had the skills to provide safe care and support.

The staff were highly committed and found innovative ways to provide people with positive care experiences.

Effective quality assurance systems were in place to obtain feedback, monitor performance and manage risks.