• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Park Street Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

10 Park Street, Bath, Somerset, BA1 2TE (01225) 425011

Provided and run by:
Mrs Alice Togher

All Inspections

26 November 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 26 November 2015 and was unannounced. When Park Street Home was last inspected in December 2013 there were no breaches of the legal requirements identified.

Park Street Home is a residential dementia care home without nursing and provides care and support for up to ten older people. On the day of our inspection the home was at full occupancy.

The service has 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.

The provider did not have adequate processes in place to ensure the safe management and administration of medicine. Areas which required further development included processes for recording medicine protocols and guidance for staff, covertly administered medicines and medicine disposal.

The Department of Health guidance on the prevention and control of infection had not been followed. The home used communal hand towels and laundry processes which did not follow the guidance. This increased the risk of cross-infection.

The staff had received training regarding how to keep people safe and they were aware of the service safeguarding and whistle-blowing policy and procedures.

Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people’s needs and this ensured people were supported safely. Staff we spoke with felt the staffing level was appropriate.

Staff demonstrated a detailed knowledge of people’s needs and had received training to support people to be safe and respond to their care needs. However staff supervision had been irregular and was being improved by the registered manager.

Care provided to people met their needs. Care records provided personalised information about how to support people. People were involved in regular activities.

The staff had a basic understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. These safeguards aim to protect people living in care homes and hospitals from being inappropriately deprived of their liberty. These safeguards can only be used when a person lacks the mental capacity to make certain decisions and there is no other way of supporting the person safely. Meetings had been arranged in order to enable people’s best interest to be assessed when it had been identified that they lacked the capacity to consent to their care and treatment.

There was a robust staff recruitment process in operation designed to employ staff that would have or be able to develop the skills to keep people safe and support individuals to meet their needs.

People had their physical and mental health needs monitored. The service maintained daily records of how people’s needs were meet and this included information about medical appointments with GP’s and dentists for example.

There were positive and caring relationships between staff and people at the service. People praised the staff that provided their care and we received positive feedback from people’s relatives and visitors . Staff respected people’s privacy and we saw staff working with people in a kind and compassionate way when responding to their needs.

There was a complaints procedure for people, families and friends to use and compliments were also recorded.

We saw that the service took time to work with and understand people’s individual way of communicating in order that the service staff could respond appropriately to the person.

The provider had quality monitoring systems in place which were used to improve the service.

We found a breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 at this inspection. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

25 September 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At the last inspection during July 2013 we found people were not protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care. This was because the provider had not recorded appropriate information to meet the individual care needs of people. The provider sent us an action plan to show how they planned to address these concerns. This inspection was to follow up on the shortfalls identified and actions taken by the provider.

24 July 2013

During a routine inspection

During our visit we were able to meet and talk with all ten people living at the home. The people living here had dementia which made it difficult for some to tell us about their experiences. We did not ask the same questions of all people, as it was harder for some to express their views and experiences. One person said: 'I love it here.'

We spoke with three relatives, one of them said: 'we were lucky to get a place here; I can't recommend it enough.' Another told us 'I think they (staff) are brilliant.'

There were four staff on duty at the time of our visit. We spent time observing how all staff communicated and supported people. This was to help us understand the experiences of people who could not explain this to us. We saw positive interactions by staff with people who were engaged in a range of activities. While we were there we saw two people supported walk to the local shops with staff.

We observed staff supporting people with their personal care in a responsive way. We saw people were relaxed and cheerful.

We asked if people liked the food and one person told us it was 'lovely.' Relatives told us: 'it's nice food.' We saw the menu written on a board where everyone could see. We observed that people were offered drinks frequently.

Since the last inspection the manager had made improvements to systems used to monitor and improve the quality of the service people received. This included surveys with people and families and putting procedures in place to check the home was safe.

We spoke to staff who demonstrated that they knew people well. We reviewed the care plans of five of the ten people living in the home. We found written information to show how care should be delivered was inconsistent or missing.

13 June 2012

During a routine inspection

We had not been able to speak to all of the people using the service because some of them had dementia which made it harder for them to express their views. To find out what daily life was like for people at Park Street Care Home 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.

We met the 10 people who were living at the home on the day of our inspection. We also spoke with a visiting community nurse, who told us they thought the home was 'one of the best homes in the area'. People told us how well supported they were by staff team at Park Street Care Home. We were told 'they are very nice people here'. 'It's very good'.

People were being effectively supported by staff with their range of personal care needs. People were supported to go out into the community for walks to the nearby park and to the shops. We saw care plans contained information so staff were guided to give people the care they needed.

People told us how well supported they were by staff team at Park Street Care Home. We were told 'they are very nice people here'. 'It's very, very good'.

People were seen to be treated with courtesy by the staff at Park Street Care Home. The staff were competent in their understanding of what to do to keep people safe from abuse. We saw up to date information available to guide them to know how to keep people safe in the home.

People were benefiting from being supported by staff who had been on a range of relevant training and development courses. This was to help staff have an understanding and insight into people's range of care needs.

We saw the provider took a 'hands-on' approach to the running of the home. They worked alongside staff on a daily basis. However there was no formal system in place to check, monitor and improve the quality of the service people received.