Park House

About the service

Park House is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to 6 people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 9 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Right Support

People were supported by staff who recognised and reported the risk of abuse. People’s risks were assessed, monitored and managed. People were supported by enough staff who were safely recruited to work in the service. People’s medicines were managed safely. There were effective systems to prevent and control infections.

People were supported to eat, and drink where required and have a healthy diet. People were well treated and supported with their equality and diversity respected. People received person-centred care which met their needs and preferences and their communication needs were assessed and met.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Right Care

People’s needs were assessed and delivered in line with their choices and they were supported by staff who were trained to meet their needs. Staff worked with other health and social organisations. The home was adapted and decorated to meet people’s needs and preference. They were supported to share their views and be involved in their care. People were supported to develop and maintain relationships and take part in activities and things of an interest to them.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The provider planned to review the assessments in place to ensure they were decision specific.

Right Culture

Processes were in place to record any accidents and incidents. People’s privacy and dignity was respected, and their independence promoted. The provider acted on any concerns and complaints raised to improve people’s care.

People were supported by staff who shared a positive culture which provided them with good outcomes. The provider and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. The registered manager understood their obligation under the duty of candour. People and staff were involved and engaged in the service whilst we had mixed reviews from people’s relatives. The provider was continuing to learn to improve people’s care.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 11 January 2019).

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about the safety of people. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.

We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern. Please see the safe and well led sections of this full report.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

• People enjoyed living at Park House and were cared for by staff who were caring and considerate.

• Staff understood people’s rights to dignity, respect and independence and promoted these in the way they cared for people.

• People, their relatives and other health and social care professionals were involved in planning people’s care. Staff used people’s preferred ways of communicating, to assist people to decide what care they wanted.

• People were supported to enjoy a range of activities which reflected their interests, and enhanced their lives.

• People received support to keep in touch with relatives and friends who were important to them.

• People had access to the healthcare they wanted. Staff highlighted how relationships developed with other health and social care professionals had led to prompt access to health provision. This improved health and well-being outcomes for people living at Park House.

• Systems were in place to promote people’s safety, and staff understood and supported people so their individual risks were reduced.

• There was sufficient staff to care for people and the environment was regularly checked, to enhance people’s safety.

• Staff had received training and developed the skills they needed to care for people. The risk of accidental harm or infections was reduced as staff used the resources and equipment provided to do this.

• We found people’s medicines were administered safely. Staff provided people with the support they needed to have the medicines they needed to remain well, and people’s medicines were regularly reviewed and checked.

• The registered manager and staff worked together to plan people’s care, so people’s needs would be met and they would enjoy a good level of well-being.

• People and staff and were encouraged to make any suggestions for improving the care provided and the service further. The registered manager planned to obtain further feedback from people’s relatives and other health and social care professionals, and was intending to use this feedback to reflect on the quality of care provided.

• The registered manager and strove to drive through improvements in people’s care, so people would continue to enjoy living at Park House.

• We found the service met the characteristics of a “Good” rating in all areas; More information is available in the full report

Rating at last inspection: Good. The last report for Park House was published on 15 July 2016.

About the service: Park House is a is a residential care home, providing personal care and accommodation. There were six younger people, living with either learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders, at the home at the time of the inspection.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated Good overall.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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.

People lived in a safe environment as staff knew how to protect people from harm. Staff recognised signs of abuse and knew how to report this. Risk assessments were in place and staff took appropriate actions to minimise risks without taking away people’s right to make decisions. There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. Regular reviews of people’s care and the deployment of staff meant staffing levels reflected the support needs of people who lived there. People’s medicines were administered and managed in a way that kept people safe.

The provider supported their staff by arranging training and up-skilling staff in areas that were specific to the people who lived in the home. Staff had weekly learning and development time which staff found useful. People received care and support that was in-line with their needs and preferences. Staff provided people’s care with their consent and agreement and understood and recognised the importance of this. We found people were supported to eat a healthy balanced diet and with enough fluids to keep them healthy. People had access to healthcare professionals when they required them.

We saw that people were involved in the planning around their care. People’s views and decisions they had made about their care were listened and acted upon. People told us that staff treated them kindly, with dignity and their privacy was respected. People received individual responsive care and support that was in line with their preferences which had a positive outcome for people who used the service.

People and relatives knew how to complain and felt comfortable to do this should they feel they needed to. We looked at the providers complaints over the last 12 months and found that 10 complaints had been received. These had been responded to with satisfactory outcomes for those who had raised the complaint.

The registered manager demonstrated clear leadership. Staff were supported to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively, which meant that people’s received care and support in-line with their needs and wishes.

We found that the checks the provider completed focused upon the experiences people received. Where areas for improvement were identified, systems were in place to ensure that lessons were learnt and used to improve staff practice.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

The people who lived in the home and their relatives told us they were pleased with the care provided. They felt that their views were respected and listened to.

People told us they felt safe. We saw that people were free to go out and about as part of their daily routine. One person told us, 'They're great'.

We saw that staff had received specialist training in how to respond to peoples complex behaviours. This was to protect people's physical wellbeing as well as their human rights and dignity.

We found that people's medication was managed in a safe and effective way. This ensured that people received the right medication in the right quantities at the right times.

Recruitment processes showed that staff employed to work at the home were suitable and had the skills and experience needed to support the people who lived there.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. While nobody was currently subject to a DoLS proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff have been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the support they received. They told us that the registered manager and the staff had asked them what their needs and wishes were and how they would like them met. One person said, 'We're always talking about what I'm going to do'. Another person said, 'They asked me about lots of things and I tell them what I would like to do'.

Personal records confirmed people's needs and preferences had been recorded and support had been provided in accordance with their wishes.

People told us they were happy to discuss their support with staff. They said that staff obtained help for them if they were unwell. This meant people were helped to keep in good health, have access to health care services and received ongoing support.

We found that the staff received the support and training that enabled them to meet the needs of the people living in the home.

Is the service caring?

People we talked with told us their wishes were respected and they were able to live their lives as they wished. Staff took the time to find out about people's background. Staff knew people's needs well and how they needed to be supported. This meant that staff cared about the person as an individual and were concerned about their well-being and personal development.

People and their relatives were encouraged to make their views known about their care. People that we talked with told us that they found the registered manager and the staff easy to approach about any issues they had. This meant that people were listened to and they felt that their views mattered.

Is the service responsive?

People had been assessed before they moved into the home so that arrangements could be made to meet their needs.

People and their relatives told us they talked with the registered manager and the staff about what was important to them. They talked the about activities they took part in and their meals. They told us that their support plans had been changed as a result.

Is the service well led?

The registered manager and the staff demonstrated values that promoted involvement, openness, dignity, respect and independence. We talked with staff who showed they understood those values as they discussed their role and responsibilities in their work. This meant the service promoted an open culture that was centred on the individual and empowered them to take control of their life as much as they were able.

The provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the home so that potential improvements in meeting people's care needs could be identified and put into place.

People told us that they felt able to raise any issues with the manager or staff should they have any concerns. Staff spoke of their awareness of how to keep people safe from harm. Staff told us about the training that the home had arranged for them to attend so that they would recognise abuse and how to report it.

People told us that staff were always available when they needed help. They said that the staff were friendly and always acted professionally. One person said, 'The staff are ace'.

The provider had developed a system whereby they can monitor how well the home is meeting the needs of the people who live there.