Park View Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed by either the registered manager or the nurse clinical lead to enable an informed and considered decision was made before they moved into the service. Decisions were made on information available at the time of the assessment, including, the needs of the person, the mix of people already living at the service and the numbers, skills and abilities of staff. The registered manager said they were keen to try to ensure a successful transition into the service.

A relative told us, “The manager went to see her and travelled 45 minutes and agreed she could move in”, and another said, “The assessment was done by the clinical lead. They came to the house and spent nearly 2 hours. They called after to say she had been accepted”.

The initial assessment led to the development of people’s individual care plans and risk assessments. Health and care needs were reviewed regularly, at least once a month and information from the previous month was used to update care plans.
The registered manager had completed a ‘lessons learnt newsletter’ to staff, reminding them of the reasons for care plan reviewing and their expectations of staff to ensure an accurate and holistic approach.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.
People’s care plans were individual and included information about their life and what and who was important to them as well as guidance around their assessed care needs. People’s relatives told us they had been involved in care planning. A person told us, “We have had a few meetings to discuss my care, they are on ball. I'm very happy here”. A relative said, “I have a copy of the care plan, and I have read it and was happy with it”.
Along with people’s and relative’s input, nationally recognised assessment tools were completed to assess the individual’s risks in relation to several areas of care such as skin integrity, malnutrition, falls and mobility. Levels of risk were calculated which were then used to inform individual care plans and risk assessments.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. People’s care records were detailed, providing information that would be needed if the person were to be admitted to hospital, or to another care setting, to aid a smooth, safe and caring transition. Staff knew people well so were able to provide a good handover to other services when necessary.

Teams within the service worked well together. Staff told us the registered manager had built a cohesive team where everyone knew their role in making sure people were understood and cared for well. There were 2 distinct floors, 1 floor mainly for people with nursing needs, and the other which was mainly residential needs, including people living with dementia, where health related needs requiring trained nursing staff were not the main priority. However, people had moved between the 2 floors when the registered manager and their management team had assessed people, based on feedback from staff and relatives, and supported people to move to enable a positive change.

A relative told us, “(Relative) took some persuading to agree to move to the (other) floor, including a long chat with the manager, but staff not only moved all his things but put the new room to look nearly identical to his old one”, and another said, “(relative) is always at risk of falling and it was thought sensible to move him (to the other floor). First, he wanted to, then he didn’t – round and round in circles. Finally, he had a long conversation with the manager who got him to agree that a move would be good idea”.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives.

People were supported to maintain and improve their health and well-being. Staff referred people to healthcare professionals promptly when they needed to, to make sure they received healthcare advice without delay.
However, care plans did not always provide enough information in relation to people’s specific health conditions, such as epilepsy or non-epileptic seizures. A person’s diabetes had not always been managed well however, this had improved since they moved to another floor which suited them better and supported their well-being.

The staff team was stable and consistent with no reliance on agency staff which meant staff knew people well, so in practice this supported the reduction of risk in relation to their health conditions.

People told us staff looked after their health, a person said, “I have not been well in the past few days, and I have been well taken care of. They have been on the ball with everything. They check up on me frequently. They offer me everything to make me comfortable”.
Relatives were positive about the support their loved ones received with their health. One relative told us, “They’ve worked wonders – first, sorting out health issues, then giving her the opportunity to join in with the life of Park View” and another said, “The staff are wonderful. She has diabetes and they have got to know her and how to manage it. They have got to learn signs when she may be having low or high sugars. They know when she is a bit more confused. They manage it very well”.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s care records provided information about people’s likes and dislikes and what they could do for themselves and the areas they needed more support. This helped staff, along with their personal knowledge of people, to be able to support people to maintain and improve outcomes. The management team checked to make sure people were given the opportunity to achieve what they wanted as far as possible.
During our visit, we saw the meals that were available on the day’s menu displayed on plates as people entered the dining room. This helped to remind people what was on the menu and supported those living with dementia to understand the choices they were being asked to make. This supported people’s well-being as it enabled them to make a real choice and avoided frustration and worry, supporting their ability to engage in mealtimes and their meal, potentially improving nutritional and social outcomes.
Relatives confirmed this was a feature at every mealtime. The comments we received included, “They bring the show plate during mealtimes to help the residents choose. They bring the plate to the table to show them. (Relative) can feed herself and they promote it” and “There’s a small table near reception where they put small plates of the day’s choices – for my (relative) this means he can make proper choices himself”.

The provider did not always properly document how people’s rights around consent were maintained and upheld.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s right to choice and to provide consent as outlined in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where people were deemed to lack capacity to make a specific decision, relatives were asked their views on their loved one’s behalf and in their best interests, where appropriate.
However, mental capacity assessment records were not always consistent. The capacity assessments for 2 people recorded they lacked capacity to make a specific decision, but this did not match the recording of the assessment that had taken place with the person. The record of the questions asked by the assessor to the person to support their decision in relation to their capacity showed each person had understood the questions and retained the information and were able to refer back to it correctly. We raised this with the registered manager, who took action to review the records, and planned to review all mental capacity assessments to check for recording errors. The records issue did not impact on people as staff knew people well and knew their abilities and where they needed added support which meant staff ensured their rights were maintained and upheld. There was a risk new staff or agency staff who did not know people well may follow the information recorded which was not accurate before we raised it.

People and relatives told us their right to choose and to make decisions were always respected. One person said, “The girls (staff) take their time to know you and what you like. I like to look nice and coordinate my clothes. They help me choose what I want, and I match the colours as I like”. A relative said, “Now she’s better, she makes her own decisions and choices. There’s lots of choices around the home, for example eating in the bistro or dining room” and another commented, “They do offer him choices, from the menu and choosing activities”.