Park View Nursing 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 we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 79 (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 had a very clear shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and an exceptional understanding of the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

All the people we spoke with commented positively about the culture of the service. Some family members told us their relatives had specifically requested to live in the service due to either working there in the past or visiting other relatives. Comments included, “[Person] worked as a carer in many homes in the area and said before their condition got worse, I want to go into Park View, it’s the best one.” Some relatives told us they would happily live there themselves if it was needed in the future.

Family members were offered free food at the service so they could sit with their relatives and eat as a social event.

All staff commented positively about the home and how they were treated by the provider and leaders. Staff understood the values of the service with comments such as, “It’s a family, we are a family here, we have one purpose, our residents,” and “We want this to be people’s home, treat them as if they are in their own home and we are all part of a larger family.” Leaders told us, “This isn’t our place of work this is people’s homes and where they live, we support them to have the best life and experience possible. We want the home to remain the choice for residents and relatives; we have a good reputation and good standing in the local area where people feel confident to recommend us.”

The service had long standing staff members who had worked in the service for many years. They refrained from using agency staff and staff were willing to cover shifts where needed to ensure people were supported by staff who knew them.

One professional who had visited the service for several years told us the service was, “One of the nicest homes I’ve been to.” Another professional commented, “The service is lucky compared to some others because they have a supportive team. They seem to have on average more nurses available than some other services. There are long standing staff members. Always willing to help.”

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders were actively involved in the day to day running of the service. They were involved in regular meetings with the local authority and liaised with another service for peer support. The registered manager told us they received effective support and supervision from the operations manager and owner. We observed the registered manager knew the people who lived in the service and their needs. They had the qualifications and experience to lead the service.

People provided positive comments about the leadership of the service. One comment included, “I can see the manager if I want to and I think the place is very well run and organised, I have no worries at all.”

Staff were positive about leaders’ skills. One staff member told us, “[Manager] is supportive and ask if I need any help. If I need to learn anything or need to change anything, they are very clear with me. We have team meetings every morning for a handover and every month a whole staff meeting. They are very good at communication and very clear.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

There were processes to allow people, relatives and staff to raise concerns or share ideas. There was a whistleblowing policy and procedure which staff had access to.

Staff told us they had opportunities to speak up and have their voices heard during supervisions, team meetings and through an open-door policy. One staff member told us they had a concern over a year ago and when they raised it, it was addressed immediately. Staff knew who they could raise concerns with outside of the provider if needed. People and relatives were also positive about their experiences to speak up about any concerns they had.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff told us they were from many different nationalities and one comment included, “We are from different cultures, and we all blend together, there are no problems at all.” Staff reported they had not witnessed or been subjected to any bullying or harassment at the service. They also reported they had been treated fairly and equally.

Staff had received training in equality and diversity, and the provider had relevant policies and procedures.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

We saw regular audits routine audits were taking place in relation to care records, medicines, health and safety and daily notes. These were effective in identifying areas of concern and putting actions in place. Weekly reporting was completed by the registered manager which the operations manager and nominated individual had oversight of. The service analysed falls whenever they happened and put in further interventions if needed. There was a policy available for the general data protection regulations. Policies we reviewed were comprehensive and fit for purpose.

However, we identified the oversight of some documentation was not effective in some areas. This was in relation to care plans and risk assessments for diabetes, epilepsy and choking risks. We explored this in more detail in the safe domain. The provider was working through care plans and risk assessments to ensure the information was accurate for staff to follow.

The provider understood and carried out their duty to collaborate and worked in partnership, and services worked seamlessly for people. They always shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The provider was part of their local community where people were regular visitors to the local café and had the opportunity to sit and chat with other people. Older people in the community regularly visited the service and bought in biscuits and chocolates. These visitors had also been offered free food and lunch with other residents due to the service recognising the importance of socialisation for other older people in the local community.

The service organised regular events throughout the year and had transport to take people out. There were regular activities within the home and one-to-one activities scheduled.

Outside areas were well maintained and accessible with a sunroom available for people and their families for special events, free of charge. We saw photographs of a family using the room for a birthday event. The service also provided food for the events taking place. The service overlooked a local playing field where there were regular cricket and sporting events which people enjoyed sitting in garden areas and watching. People were sometimes supported to access the field to watch the events closely. There was also access to a viewing area inside the service for people to look out over the playing fields.

Although the provider captured comments from staff about how the activities had a positive impact on people, the service did not capture people’s views and experiences to evidence the social impact. Leaders told us they would implement this immediately.

People told us the service worked with partners on their behalf. Partners also confirmed the service worked with them to develop and improve care for people. One partner told us, “They ask for my feedback. They take on board my advice and guidance.”

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Leaders told us they completed research online to look at ways in which they could bring new ideas into the home and learn about what other providers were doing. Leaders attended regular conferences and workshops in their local area. Staff who were interested in development opportunities were supported to achieve additional learning and qualifications.

People living in the service were involved in the recruitment process of new staff and were able to give their views on who should be employed.

There was a good case management system in operation to capture all people’s information and alerts about people’s needs were available on staff’s handheld devices to ensure a timely response. The provider had recently purchased a mobile activity table for activity staff to take to people’s bedroom so they could participate in activities from their bed.