You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 12 September 2017

During a routine inspection

Park View provides accommodation for up to 23 people who require help with personal care and people living with dementia. Bedrooms are located on two floors with access via a passenger lift. The home overlooks Lister Park in the Heaton area of Bradford. At the time of the inspection there were 22 people living in the home.

The inspection took place on 12 September 2017 and was unannounced

At the previous inspection, the service was rated Good and ‘requires improvement’ in well led. We identified a breach of Regulation 17 – Good governance. At this inspection we found the service retained the good rating overall and had made improvements to the governance of the service.

However at this inspection we rated the ‘Is the service safe?’ domain as Requires improvement. This is because we found some areas of the building required maintenance and adaption to ensure they provided a good quality environment for people living with dementia.

People told us they felt safe. We saw safeguarding procedures were in place and they were followed to help keep people safe. Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and clear plans of care put in place which were well understood by staff.

Overall, people’s medicines were managed and administered safely although some improvements were needed to some staff practice.

There were enough staff employed to ensure people received a good level of interaction, supervision and companionship. Staff were safely recruited to help ensure they were of suitable character to work with vulnerable people. Staff received a range of training, support and supervision appropriate to their role.

People received a range of food which met their individual needs. Nutritional risks were well managed by the service.

The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Where people lacked capacity, best interest processes were followed. People were given choices and involved in decision making to the maximum extent possible.

People’s needs were assessed and clear and person centred plans of care put in place, which were subject to regular review. People said care needs were met and staff were knowledgeable about people. The service worked with a range of professionals to ensure needs were met.

People said staff were kind and caring and treated them well. People were listened to and their views and opinions valued. Systems were in place to listen and respond to people’s complaints.

People and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and said they were approachable. We saw they were hands on and regularly undertook care and support tasks which helped them maintain oversight of the home. Regular audits and checks were undertaken and people’s feedback was used to drive improvements to the service.

We made one recommendation around maintaining and improving the quality of the environment.

Inspection carried out on 14 June 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 15 October 2015. At that time the service was given a quality rating of 'good' overall. After that inspection we received concerns in relation to safeguarding and compliance with the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard legislation. As a result we undertook a focused inspection to look into those concerns. This report only covers our findings in relation to those. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for (location's name) on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Park View provides accommodation for up to 23 people who require help with personal care. Bedrooms are located on two floors with access via a passenger lift. The home overlooks Lister Park in the Heaton area of Bradford. It is close to local amenities and a bus route. Level access is available to the rear of the property and there is a small car park.

At the time of the focused inspection on 14 June 2017 there were 17 people using the service.

There was 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.

People told us they felt safe living at Park View and we found staff mostly understood how to keep people safe from harm, but needed some more training in this area. Good systems were in place to make sure people were protected from any financial abuse.

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 support this practice. The legal requirements relating to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were being met.

Inspection carried out on 15 and 20 ctober 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place 15 October and 20 October 2015 and was unannounced. The last inspection was carried out on 11 March 2014 and the provider was compliant in all areas inspected against.

Park View provides accommodation for up to 23 people who require help with personal care and people living with dementia. Bedrooms are located on two floors with access via a passenger lift. The home overlooks Lister Park in the Heaton area of Bradford. It is close to local amenities and a bus route. Level access is available to the rear of the property and there is a small car park. At the time of the inspection there were 23 people living in the home.

The service had a registered manager 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.

The service had completed audits as part of a quality assurance process. The service and management was supported by a consultant to help maintain quality and identify concerns. Audits had not always identified areas of concern and issues were raised with the registered manager and the provider during the inspection that should have been identified through a robust quality assurance system.

People told us they felt safe. Most staff had been trained in key subjects and knew what to do to keep people safe from the risk of harm.

People who lived at the service told us that they were happy with the care provided. Risks to people’s health and care had been identified and staff knew how to help reduce risks to people, for example, from falling or pressure sores.

We saw appropriate pre-employment checks, including criminal records checks, had been carried out for new members of staff so that as far as possible staff with the appropriate skills and experience were employed. Criminal background checks were not always carried out in line with the provider’s policy which stated they should be done every three years. While this is good practice it is not a legal requirement. People told us there was enough staff to meet their needs.

The staff told us they were supported to achieve vocational qualifications and said they valued this opportunity. The staff told us the registered manager was very approachable and responsive to requests for training.

Most staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff understood the need to ask people for their consent before carrying out care tasks. We saw the provider had followed the correct procedures where people’s liberty needed to be restricted for their safety.

People were complimentary about the choice of foods available to them. People’s nutritional and dietary needs were assessed and people were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to maintain their health.

People had access to healthcare professionals when this was required. Healthcare professionals told us they had a positive working relationship with the service. Staff followed direction from professionals and if they had any concerns, would report these immediately.

The arrangements in place for people’s medicines meant people received their medicines when they needed them. Storage of medicines was safe and people were not rushed when medicines where being administered. The supplying pharmacist told us they had a good relationship with staff and supported them with medicine training.

We saw staff talking and listening to people in a caring and respectful manner. We observed staff were courteous and spoke warmly to and about the people they cared for. All staff we spoke with were able to demonstrate their knowledge of people. There was an emphasis on protecting people’s dignity.

People had been involved in identifying their care needs and staff knew how to support people to meet their needs. Care records provided guidance to staff as to how to do this appropriately. Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s individual needs and preferences and knew how people communicated their needs.

People told us they enjoyed the opportunities for activities provided in the home such as dominos or singing. They also enjoyed trips out for lunch and shopping.

People told us they were able to raise their concerns or complaints and were confident they were listened to. The service had a complaints policy in place. The Statement of Purpose for the service documented information about how to complain. The service had not received any recent complaints.

People who used the service and staff told us the registered manager was approachable, listened and was supportive to them. There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.  You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full report.

Inspection carried out on 10, 18 July 2014

During a routine inspection

We set out to answer our five questions:

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during

the inspection, discussions with people using the service, the staff supporting them and

our review of records. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We found staff had a good understanding of safe guarding and different types of abuse. Staff could tell us warning signs they would look out for and who they could report concerns too. Care plans identified risk and risk assessments had been put into place to reduce or remove risk where possible. We found sufficient levels of staff to keep people safe.

Is the service effective?

People had need assessments from joining the service where care plans had been created. Plans were reviewed on a regular basis to make sure they were up to date. Plans included person centred information and we observed staff following people�s plans.

Is the service caring?

We observed people were supported by kind attentive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. One person told us, �Staff are very nice here.� People�s preferences, interest and needs had been recorded and care and support had been delivered in line with people�s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

We saw people and their families had been involved in care plan reviews. People were aware how to make complaints and staff were aware how to record complaints. Staff told us if they witnessed someone�s needs had changed, they would report to the manager and work to update the plan of care. Staff were informed of any changes at handovers or in team meetings.

Is the service well-led?

We saw the service did regular checks on quality of areas such as infection control. The service had recently been inspected by food hygiene and had started making arrangements to achieve their recommendations. Feedback surveys were filled out by people that used the service, staff and relatives. We saw comments and concerns were looked into and changes had been made to improve quality of the service.

Inspection carried out on 11 March 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We found that the necessary improvements had been made to ensure people received safe and effective care. We found staff were polite and respectful towards the people who used the service. We spoke with seven people who used the service in total; one person said "It's nice to live here" and another said "They really look after us well here". A third person we spoke with said the food was very good and someone else stated how it was a nice enough place to live.

We found the environment of the home was clean and there had been changes in how cleanliness was monitored. There was a full time housekeeper who adhered to specific cleaning schedules and this ensured consistency in terms of how processes were managed. We also found the environment had been improved in several areas and maintained to the necessary standards.

We also found staffing levels were sufficient and there were the necessary staff roles to ensure people's needs were consistently met including care staff, housekeeping, cook and registered manager.

Inspection carried out on 5, 9 September 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We found staff treated people with respect and we observed staff interacting with people in a kind and compassionate way, particularly during meal times. We heard staff speaking with people who used the service and offered choices, for example, choice of meal and where people would like to sit.

We found some aspects of people's needs were met, for example support provided with eating and drinking, and we found staff understood people's key needs. However, with some people, especially those who required most support, some needs were not always fully met such as ensuring people were encouraged to clean their rooms and ensure their clothing was clean.

The care files we reviewed contained accurate information about the needs of people who lived at the home. The care files we reviewed on the first day of the inspection were disorganised and contained unnecessary information. However, the registered manager addressed these issues on our return to the home for the second day of the inspection.

On the first day of the inspection we found the maintenance of the environment of the home and cleanliness to be sub-standard and people were at unnecessary risk of harm through cross infection. Several areas of concern had been rectified by the time we re-visited for the second day of the inspection.

We found staffing levels were inadequate particularly because there was no designated cook or domestic staff. The manager was spending four days a week working in the kitchen and care staff were required to do all the cleaning and manage laundry.

Inspection carried out on 25 February 2013

During a routine inspection

During the visit we had the opportunity to speak with three people who used the service and a relative. Everyone told us they were "happy" with the care and support provided at Park View. They said the staff were "nice and friendly." People told us they had been able to make choices and decisions about how they wanted to spend time at the home. The staff encouraged them to be fully involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. A relative told us they had been involved in discussions and decisions about their relatives care needs and were kept informed about any changes.

People who lived in the home said the food was "good" or "alright." Comments from the recent satisfaction survey showed the home was a friendly home and staff were terrific and never stopped cleaning the home.

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We did not speak directly to people who use the service when assessing this outcome. At the last inspection in August 2011 people who were able told us that they had no concerns about the care they received and if they had any concerns or complaints they would speak to the manager.

Inspection carried out on 19 August 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

We spoke to four people who use the service and they told us that staff are friendly and always explain what they are doing.

The people we spoke to told us that they are given a choice at mealtimes and the staff would provide them with an alternative if they did not like the meals on offer. They also told us that they had no concerns about the care they receive, and if they had any concerns or complaints, they would speak to the manager.

The people we spoke to told us they were generally happy with the care being provided. They also told us that the staff were friendly and the manager spoke to them on a regular basis.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)