You are here

Archived: Parkfield House Care Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 5 August 2017

This inspection took place on 16 May 2017 and was unannounced. The last inspection took place on 20 April 2016 and at that time we found the provider was in breach of Regulation 17; Good Governance. This inspection was carried out to see what improvements had been made since the last inspection. At this inspection we found the provider was in breach of Regulation 12; In safe care and treatment, Regulation 13; Safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment and Regulation 17; Good governance.

Parkfield House in Thwaites Brow, Keighley provides nursing care for up to 24 people aged over 65 years. It is a converted house which has 17 bedrooms comprising of eight doubles and nine singles. There are two lounges on the ground floor and one lounge upstairs. The home has a large conservatory overlooking tiered gardens and a patio area. There is a passenger lift for access to the upper level as well as stairs. All food is prepared on the premises and there is a laundry.

At the time of our inspection the service was without a registered manager. The previous manager left in April 2017. In the interim a manager from the provider’s other home is overseeing the service until a new manager can be appointed. 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 told us they felt the service was safe. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and knew how to report any concerns about people's safety and welfare. We found safeguarding concerns were being referred to the local safeguarding team and the Commission.

The provider followed a robust recruitment procedure to ensure new staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff training had improved and the majority of staff were up to date with training on safe working practices. However we found staff supervision was not regular or consistent and appraisals had not been completed this year.

Overall we found people's medicines were managed safely. Although records did not always show when creams and lotions known as ‘topical medicines’ were applied and how often; we were told this issue would be addressed by the interim manager during the inspection.

We found staff were not working in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act which meant people's rights were not always protected.

We found people’s health care needs were met and relevant referrals to health professionals were made when needed.

Although staff generally responded to people’s individual needs; this was not always reflected in people’s care records. People’s care plans and other records required improvement.

People had their nutritional needs met and were offered a choice at every meal time. People were offered a varied diet and were provided with sufficient drinks and snacks throughout the day. People with specific nutritional needs received support in line with their care plan.

A range of activities was offered for people to participate in and people told us they enjoyed these.

There were systems in place to ensure complaints and concerns were fully investigated. The provider had dealt appropriately with all complaints received.

We found some areas of the home would benefit from refurbishment. Equipment were appropriately maintained and we noted safety checks were carried out regularly.

People, relatives and staff spoken with had confidence in the service. We found there were systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service, which included feedback from people living in the home and their relatives.

Although there were quality monitoring systems in place they had not been effective in achieving the required improvements in the service. This showed us that further improvements were still required

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 5 August 2017

The service was not always safe.

People told us they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding issues and how to protect people from any harm or abuse.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet the needs of people living in the home. Recruitment records demonstrated there were systems in place to employ staff who were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

People were supported with their medicines in a safe way by staff. However we found a number of gaps which included care staff not having signed to show they had applied cream or ointment as prescribed.

Some area of the home would benefit from refurbishment and made more dementia friendly.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 5 August 2017

The service was not always effective.

Staff were not always working in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to have an adequate dietary intake and their preferences were catered for.

We found staff had received appropriate induction to work and staff training was kept up to date. However we found staff supervision did not take place on a planned and regular basis and appraisals had not been undertaken this year.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 August 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff that were caring and compassionate.

Staff knew about people's individual likes, dislikes and preferences.

Relatives could visit at any time and told us they were always made welcome.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 5 August 2017

The service was not always responsive.

Care plans were not always person centred to reflect people's individual needs.

People were supported to take part in a range of activities in the home.

People knew how to complain and said they would raise issues if this was necessary. Previous complaints had been responded to appropriately and in a timely manner.

Well-led

Inadequate

Updated 5 August 2017

The service was not always well-led.

Staff we spoke with told us they enjoyed their work. People we spoke with told us they were well cared for.

At the time of inspection there was no registered manager in post. However, the organisation had been proactive in recruiting a new manager who was due to take up post shortly after the inspection.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service which included feedback from people living in the home and their relatives. However the system was not robust to ensure people receive safe, effective, responsive care and treatment