Park House Rest Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Care and support plans were consistent and detailed; created to clearly state people’s needs and aspirations, often in their own words. The service visibly demonstrated a good approach to equity through this consistency; no favouritism or bias was observed.

The home had displays of community opportunities that represented a wide range of backgrounds and interests, such as promotion of upcoming events as well as a local LGBT+ organisation which had telephone or skype meetings for people to attend remotely.

Food was varied, appetizing and the chef able to accommodate all needs and preferences. Nutritional requirements were displayed in the kitchen but away from public view. People could request anything they wanted, but there was a wall menu display as well as in large print at tables. In addition, snacks were available at any time. A staff member took a snack and drinks trolley around the service periodically so that everyone had the opportunity to have something they liked. Staff were observed encouraging and assisting some people to eat; this was where they wanted to eat – their room, the dining room or anywhere else. Mealtimes were flexible, which meant that the team were able to stagger serving so it remained calm. In the dining area, condiments were available on every table, which was presented in a café style with attractive cutlery, crockery and napkins.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.