You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 2 October 2018

We inspected Park House between 3 September 2018 and 5 September 2018.The inspection was unannounced. The service is for elderly people, some of whom may have physical disabilities or dementia. At the last inspection, in October 2016, the service was rated as ‘Good,’ and following this inspection the service retains this rating.

Park House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Park House accommodated up to fourteen people, and nine people lived at the service at the time of the inspection.

The service also provides community support (domiciliary care) for people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection seven people received support. Support currently provided ranged from individuals receiving one or two hours a week from one member of staff to people receiving four visits a day from two staff.

The service did not have a registered manager, although the current manager had submitted an application to be registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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 was viewed by people we spoke with as very caring. We received positive comments about the service. For example we were told, “I could not ask for better,” and “(My relative) has only good things to say about the care.” An external professional said, “Park House (provides) a high level of care and support…in a warm and supportive environment,” and another said, “Park House has undergone a significant change in the last year or so and now appears to me to be a vibrant, friendly and safe facility.”

People told us they felt safe. The service had a suitable safeguarding policy, and staff had been appropriately trained to recognise and respond to signs of abuse.

People had suitable risk assessments to ensure any risks of them coming to harm were minimised, and these were regularly reviewed. Health and safety checks on the premises and equipment were carried out appropriately.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. The service had an effective recruitment procedure, and appropriate checks were carried out on new staff to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff were suitably trained. Staff received a comprehensive induction when they started to work at the service, and they received regular supervision to provide them with feedback and guidance about their work. Overall staff had received appropriate training although some staff members still needed to complete some training required by law.

People in the community, who we contacted, said they were happy with staffing provided. The care people received was provided by a small group of staff, who they knew well. Staff arrived on time, stayed to assist them the correct amount of time, and did not leave out any assistance which they were required to give. People said staff had not missed any visits. One person said if there was any lateness, there was usually good reason, for example the carer had been delayed at a previous call. The person said staff were never late by more than 25 minutes. People said they did not receive personal care from someone from the opposite gender if they did not want this.

The medicines’ system was well managed, medicines were stored securely, and comprehensive records were kept regarding receipt, administration, and disposal of medicines. Staff who administered medicines received suitable training.

The service was clean and hygienic. The building was suitable to meet the needs of the people who lived there. There has been some decoration and improvement to the home’s environment.

There were suitable assessment processes in place before someone moved into the service. These assisted in helping staff to develop detailed care plans. The managers and staff consulted with people, and their relatives, about their care plans. Care plans were regularly reviewed.

People enjoyed the food and were provided with regular drinks throughout the day. Support people received at meal times was to a good standard. Comments about food included: “The food is very good,” “Excellent,” and, “Pretty good really.”

The service had well established links with external professionals such as GP’s, Community Psychiatric Nurses, District Nurses, and social workers.

Some people lacked capacity due to their dementia. Where necessary suitable measures had been taken to minimise restrictions. Where people needed to be restricted, to protect themselves, and/or others, suitable legal measures had been taken. No physical restraint techniques were used at the service. Staff had received suitable training about mental capacity.

Everyone we saw looked well cared for. People were clean and well dressed. The service provided some activities. We were told, “We play scrabble,” and we were told there were singsongs. We were also told the service made a lot of effort to celebrate community events, such as ‘May Day,’ and the manager said there had been a dinner where the wider community was invited to the service to encourage links with them. An external professional said, “I often see them [people using the service] out and about for walks or to visit local parks / fete / events.” The manager said some people liked to go out, so people would be assisted to go to the sea front, or to go out to have an ice cream. Activities provision was however currently being reviewed so a wider variety of opportunities could be provided.

The manager, and the management team were well respected by people, relatives, staff and external professionals. External professionals said managers were, “Supportive and helpful,“ and the manager had “Brought a refreshing stimulus to Park House with her welcoming personality.” Staff also said team working at the service was good, and team members were supportive and communicated well with each other.

There was a suitable quality assurance system in place. The managers had a hands on approach, and had a comprehensive system of checks and audits in place.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 2 October 2018

The service continues to be safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 2 October 2018

The service continues to be effective

Caring

Good

Updated 2 October 2018

The service continues to be caring.

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 October 2018

The service continues to be responsive.

Well-led

Good

Updated 2 October 2018

The service continues to be well led.