• Care Home
  • Care home

Castle Road

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

15 Castle Road, Torquay, Devon, TQ1 3BB (01803) 294378

Provided and run by:
Parkview Society Limited (The)

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Castle Road on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Castle Road, you can give feedback on this service.

14 January 2018

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 14 January 2018 and was unannounced.

Castle Road is a residential home providing care, rehabilitation and support for up to 13 people with mental health needs.

At this inspection there were 13 people living at the service.

At the last inspection in November 2015, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

On the day of the inspection staff were relaxed, and there was a calm, quiet atmosphere. Everybody had a clear role within the service. Information we requested was supplied promptly, records were organised, clear, easy to follow and comprehensive.

People were comfortable with staff supporting them and we observed positive interactions. Care records were in date, personalised and gave people control over aspects of their lives. Staff responded quickly when they noted changes to people’s mental or physical well-being contacting the appropriate health professionals for example people’s mental health nurses. People or where appropriate those who mattered to them, were involved in discussing people’s care needs and how they would like to be supported. People’s preferences for care and treatment were identified and respected.

Staff exhibited a kind and compassionate attitude towards people. Positive, caring relationships had been developed and practice was person focused and not task led. Staff had appreciation of how to respect people’s individual needs around their privacy and dignity.

People’s risks were managed well and monitored. People were promoted and encouraged to live full and active lives as part of their recovery.

People had their medicines managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed, received them on time and understood what they were for. People were supported to maintain good health through regular access to health and social care professionals, such as GPs, mental health nurses, social workers and physiotherapists.

People we observed were safe. The environment was uncluttered and clear for people to move freely around the home. All staff had undertaken training on safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse, they displayed good knowledge on how to report any concerns and described what action they would take to protect people against harm, bullying or harrassment.

People were supported by staff that confidently made use of their knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (2005), to make sure people were involved in decisions about their care and their human and legal rights were respected. The service followed the processes which were in place which protected people’s human rights and liberty.

People were supported by a staff team that had received a comprehensive induction programme, training for mental health conditions and ongoing support from the registered manager.

People were protected by the service’s safe recruitment practices. Staff underwent the necessary checks which determined they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults, before they started their employment.

The service had a policy and procedure in place for dealing with any concerns or complaints.

No written complaints had been made to the service in the past twelve months.

People described the management team to be supportive and approachable. Staff talked positively about their jobs. The registered manager was supported by a deputy manager and senior staff.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place. Incidents were appropriately recorded and analysed for learning. Learning from incidents and issues raised was used to help drive improvements. Inspection feedback was listened to which further enhanced the quality of care.

23 November 2015

During a routine inspection

Castle Road is a large detached property close to the centre of Torquay. It is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 13 people with mental health needs. People living at Castle Road were independent in many areas, but often needed prompting and support in order to lead fulfilling lives.

This unannounced inspection took place on 23 November 2015 when there were 12 people living at the service. The service was last inspected on 12 February 2014 when it met the relevant requirements.

A registered manager was employed by the service. 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 registered manager managed two other Parkview Society services and was not present during the inspection. A deputy manager supported the registered manager and was in day to day control of the service in the absence of the registered manager. The deputy manager was available throughout the inspection.

Throughout the inspection people approached staff in a relaxed manner, smiling and laughing. This indicated they felt safe in the company of staff. Risks to people were assessed and plans put in place to minimise and manage any identified risks. Risks included suicide, self-neglect, aggression and poor health.

People were protected by robust recruitment procedures. All the required checks were made before staff were employed. People were protected from the risks of abuse because staff knew how to recognise and report suspicions of abuse. Staff had received training in this area as well as a variety of other training including, first aid and food hygiene. There were safe systems in place to manage people's medicines. Medicines were stored safely and staff had received training in administering medicines.

People were supported by staff who had received training in the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). No-one was subject to a deprivation of liberty authorisation.

People’s needs were met in a safe and timely way as there were enough staff available. Staff and people living at the home said there were enough staff available to support people if they wanted to go out of the home.

People were supported to maintain a healthy, balanced diet. People took turns to prepare the main meal for everyone. One person told us “Meals are first class – the food is always fresh, never tinned. The standard is very high and the quantities are very generous”. People were supported to receive the healthcare they needed. People told us they regularly visited their GP and dentist. One person said “A doctor is easily arranged when I do need one and I saw the dentist recently”. A social care professional told us staff always supported their client to attend any appointments.

Staff were kind and caring and ensured people’s privacy and dignity was respected. We observed positive relationships between staff and the people we met at the service. There was much fun, laughter and appropriate banter between staff and the people they supported. People were supported by staff that knew them well. The home operated a key worker system where each person had a nominated member of staff who coordinated their care. Staff told us this helped them build relationships and get to know people well. People told us how staff supported them to be more independent.

Staff displayed empathy for people as well as a good knowledge of their needs and histories. They told us how one person had managed to reduce their medicines with the health of staff and outside professionals. This had resulted in their health improving. They said staff were there “for the right reasons”, that was, to support people. They said it was hard to motivate some people but when one succeeded, “it is very rewarding”.

Care plans were detailed and gave good information to staff about people’s needs. People were supported to be involved in making decisions about their care. Care plans showed that people had been involved in completing their plans and were happy with them. Several people told us their care plans were regularly reviewed and had just been done. One person told us “I have recently seen and signed my care plan. It is reviewed regularly”.

People told us they were involved in everyday matters such as cooking and cleaning. One person told us “We take turns cooking and doing other jobs in the house. There is a rota”. Two people felt they didn’t have much input into the running of the house. One person said: “We used to have regular meetings – that’s not happened for a while”. However, the deputy manager said this was not correct and that there had been a recent meeting. They told us that not everyone chose to attend the meetings and this may be why they felt they were not involved.

People were supported to maintain contact with people who were important to them. One person told us they were staying with their relatives over the Christmas period.

Opinions differed regarding activities available at the home. One person said “I go out most days and my friend comes round. None of us need activities organised”. However, another person told us “I wish I could be a bit more active. I would like to go out a bit more”. Staff told us there was always staff available to take people out or chat with them if they wanted to. They said it could be difficult to motivate people and that although some people said they wanted to do more, when given the opportunity, they declined.

The deputy manager was open and supportive and people told us they were confident any concerns would be dealt with.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor care and plan on-going improvements. There were monthly visits from a member of the Parkview Society committee who spoke with people living at the home, and reviewed the service provision.

Records were well maintained and kept securely. CQC had not been notified of some incidents as required by law. Following the inspection we discussed this with the registered manager. They told us they had not reported all incidents reported to the police as they had previously been advised by CQC this was not always necessary. They had agreed that in future they would ensure CQC were notified of all incidents that were reported to the police.

12 February 2014

During a routine inspection

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

One person told us "this is the best home in the country!". We spoke with others who lived at Castle Road, who said they thought the home was "lovely" and that staff were "always helpful and supportive". People told us that they were treated with respect and that they could choose what they did and when they did it. People were involved in undertaking chores in the home, including keeping the home clean and preparing an evening meal. People said that this had helped them become more independent.

The house was well maintained throughout and furnished comfortably with several communal areas including a games room and two lounges.

The provider had a complaints policy and information about how to make a complaint was displayed on notice boards . People said that they knew how to make a complaint but had never had any need to. They told us that they were able to discuss problems with staff who would then sort them out. Staff told us that they always discussed issues as they arose and that therefore they had not received any formal complaints.

We reviewed rotas and training records which showed that there were always sufficient staff on duty to support the needs of the people living in the home.

21 March 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke to people who told us they were independent and that staff were only there to support them when they needed it. People had keys to the front door and to their own rooms. We saw that people were supported to self medicate with prompts from staff.

We saw that there was a culture amongst staff to promote people's independence. People were encouraged to take responsibility for their personal care, cleaned their own rooms as far as they were able, did their own washing and cooked for themselves and others. Several people had jobs in charity shops and one person cleaned the local church.

People told us they were happy living there. Each person had a key worker who took a particular interest in that person and helped ensure the personal needs were met.

We met one person who was cooking the evening meal for everyone who lived there and they told us they were pleased to have the opportunity to cook for everyone. They said not everyone wanted to cook it was their choice.

23 January 2012

During a routine inspection

On our visit to the home we spoke with two people who lived at the home, and two members of staff in private. We also spoke with one person's CPN (Community Psychiatric Nurse), the registered manager and several other staff and people who lived at the home.

The manager told us that the philosophy of the home was based around the people who lived there taking responsibility for themselves and their own actions. People told us that they were encouraged to be independent and were responsible for their own laundry and keeping their rooms tidy. Staff told us that everyone was encouraged to participate in domestic activities around the home.

We saw evidence on people's care plans showing that they were supported to take risks in order to increase their independence and there was also evidence that people had been involved in drawing up and reviewing their care plans. The two people that we spoke with confirmed they had been involved in drawing up and reviewing their care plans. We sat in on a review with a CPN, the manager of the home and the individual living at the home the review was about and who was given the opportunity to comment about their care.

We saw care plans that were person centred and recorded the 'opinion of the person being reviewed'. Staff that we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs and told us that people generally did not need a lot of assistance with personal care, but prompting, encouragement and support was given, in order to ensure people's personal hygiene is maintained. Support was also given when needed, with finances, shopping and cooking.

While we were at Castle Road we spoke with people about whether they felt safe and supported and they told us that they did. People told us that they would talk to a member of staff if they were unhappy about anything. People living at Castle Road told us that staff were "wonderful", "very good and relaxed" and that they were "always around".

We saw staff supporting people well and with respect and dignity. We saw and heard people being offered choices and support when needed. We saw staff that were competent and skilled and we did not see any practice that gave us cause for concern. The staff that we spoke with were able to tell us about the needs of the people they supported and also how these needs were met.

One staff member told us that they enjoyed working at the home because they were able to see people progressing, being happy at the home and living a normal life.

Staff told us they worked well as a team and that they felt the manager supported them well. One staff member said that the manager was "The best manager I ever had".

We were told by staff and the manager that people are encouraged and supported to be fully involved in the running of their home.