Park House Rest Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

• Robust systems were in place to prevent visitors from catching and spreading infections.

• People were isolated and shielded when needed.

• Stocks of personal protective equipment (PPE) were in place and staff were trained in its use.

• People and staff were regularly taking part in the COVID-19 testing programme.

We found the following examples of good practice.

A variety of systems and processes were utilised to ensure people were supported to remain in contact with their loved ones. This included electronic virtual calls when loved ones were in hospital.

There was a visitor pod was in the garden which helped to support visits by loved ones during lockdown.

Adjustments to the environment included the installation of hand washing facilities at the entrance to the home. This helped to ensure contractors and visiting professionals followed good infection prevention and control practice prior to entering the building.

The home had enough supplies of appropriate PPE which was stored hygienically. Alcohol gel stations were accessible around the home.

People were protected from the risks of cross infection. Staff followed national guidance about putting on, taking off and disposing of PPE safely.

All staff, including catering and housekeeping staff had completed training to manage outbreaks of Coronavirus and the appropriate use of PPE.

The service was last inspected in December 2015 and was rated good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Park House Rest Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Park House Rest Home accommodates up to 18 people. At the time of our inspection 17 people were using the service.

There were two registered managers in place. 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. One of the registered managers was also the provider of the service. In this report the registered manager who was also the provider will be referred to simply as the provider.

Risks were managed to keep people safe and emergency plans were in place. The service was clean and tidy and had effective infection control processes. People were safeguarded from abuse. People’s medicines were managed safely. Safe staffing and recruitment procedures were in place.

Staff were supported with regular training, supervision and appraisal. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were supported with food and nutrition and to access external professionals. The premises were adapted to suit the needs of the people living there.

People received kind and caring support and were treated with dignity and respect. Staff promoted people’s independence. Policies and procedures were in place to support people to access advocacy services where needed.

People received personalised care based on their assessed needs and preferences. People were supported to access activities they enjoyed. Policies and procedures were in place to investigate and respond to complaints. At the time of our inspection nobody at the service was receiving end of life care, but policies and procedures were in place to provide this where needed.

The registered managers had informed CQC of significant events in a timely way by submitting the required notifications. Staff spoke positively about the culture and values of the service. The registered managers and provider carried out a number of quality assurance checks to monitor and improve standards at the service. Feedback was sought and acted on. The service had a number of community links for the benefit of people living at the service.

Park House Rest Home is a family run home that provides care for older people. It is situated within a residential area of Stockton on Tees and is close to local amenities, including a local park and has good transport links into the town centre and the nearby town of Middlesbrough. There were 16 people living at the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had two registered managers in place and they have been registered with the Care Quality Commission since January 2014 and November 2015. 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. One of the registered managers also owned the service. Due to having two registered managers this meant that a registered manager is on duty every day.

People felt safe living at the home and their risks had been identified and assessed so that staff were well informed on how to look after them safely. The philosophy of the home supported people to take greater control in their lives and to make choices. Accidents and incidents were reported and dealt with satisfactorily. There were more than sufficient numbers of staff on duty to keep people safe and staff also had time to sit and chat with people. The service followed safe staff recruitment practices. People’s medicines were managed safely and people’s capacity to administer their own medicines was assessed. We saw up to date safety checks and certificates for items that had been serviced and checked such as fire equipment and electrical safety.

Staff were well trained in a range of topics and also received specific training to meet people’s individual needs. They were supported and actively encouraged by management to take additional qualifications which supported their continual professional development. Staff ‘champions’ had been recruited who received additional training in a range of areas such as diabetes management and infection control; they provided support to other staff to ensure best practice was implemented. All staff underwent an induction period. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and associated legislation under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and put this into practice. Staff received regular supervisions and annual appraisals.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met and people enjoyed eating and drinking and maintained a healthy lifestyle. Comments about the food and the mealtime experience were very positive. The standard and quality of the food was high and people could have a drink or something to eat at any time of the day or night. People’s day to day health needs were met and they had access to a range of professionals. In addition, a healthcare professional visited the home regularly.

People were looked after by kind and caring staff who knew them exceptionally well. People and their relatives were all extremely positive about the care that was delivered and the warm, friendly attitude of all staff. Staff were sensitive and empathic to people’s needs and were prompt in providing assistance when needed. People were supported to express their views and be involved in all aspects of their care and their privacy and dignity was promoted.

People received care and support that was responsive to their needs. Care plans provided detailed information about people so staff knew exactly how they wished to be cared for in a personalised way. People were at the heart of the service and were cared for as individuals and actively encouraged to maintain their independence.

Activities were on offer for people to participate in if they wished. Outings were also organised outside of the home and people were encouraged to pursue their own interests and hobbies.

The service had not received any written complaints but they did log all minor ‘grumbles’ and these were resolved immediately.

The registered manager's had developed a robust quality assurance system and gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources.

We carried out this inspection to check that improvements had been made in respect of shortfalls in the accuracy of personal records identified on our previous visit on 17 January 2014.

During our inspection on 13 February 2015, we spent time speaking with the registered manager, the deputy manager and observing people and care staff. We looked at the records that related to people's personal information that we had previously found to contain gaps or inaccuracies, including six care plans. We found that improvements had been made and that there was a robust system in place to ensure that people's personal records were maintained accurately. The provider had a dedicated member of staff who was responsible for ensuring care plans and other personal documentation was up to date and that important monitoring tools, such as those in place to ensure people received enough nutrition, were up to date and detailed. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

People's health, safety and welfare was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment, or when they moved between different services. This was because the provider worked in co-operation with others.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

There was an effective complaints system available.

People were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were not maintained.

One relative we spoke with said, "The really lovely thing for me is that when I visit my Mum I enjoy it. I enjoy seeing her in such homely surroundings and I often forget that I am visiting her in a care home!"

We spoke with six people who lived at the home. Everyone spoke very positively about the home. One person told us, "I am very happy, lived here for 23 years so they must be doing something right! They care for me very well." Another person said, "They are great, really they are."