Parton House

Updated 8 March 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 20 and 21 February 2018 and was unannounced. One inspector carried out this inspection.

Prior to the inspection we looked at the information we had about the service. This information included the statutory notifications that the provider had sent to CQC. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, tells us what the service does well and the improvements they plan to make. We contacted the commissioners of the service to obtain their views about the care provided to people.

During our inspection we spoke with six people and two relatives. We spoke with the registered manager, a representative of the provider, the deputy manager, an activities co-ordinator, four housekeepers, two domestic staff and five members of care staff. We joined staff at a handover meeting between shifts. We looked at the care records for three people, including their medicines records. We looked at the recruitment records for three new members of staff, training records and quality assurance systems. We have also used feedback given to the provider as part of their quality assurance processes. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We contacted three social and healthcare professionals for their views of the service.

Updated 8 March 2018

Parton 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. Parton House provides accommodation and personal care. The care home accommodates 36 people in one adapted building. At the time of the inspection 22 people were living there, of whom 11 people were living with dementia.

Parton House is being refurbished. It provides spacious communal areas including three lounges, a reception room, a dining room, a cinema, seating areas on each floor and accessible gardens. People’s rooms are individualised and some have en suite facilities. They also have access to shared toilets, showers and bathrooms.

This inspection took place on 20 and 21 February 2018. At the last comprehensive inspection in December 2016 the service was rated as Requires Improvement overall.

At this inspection we found the service had improved to Good overall.

There was a registered manager in place who had recently transferred from another of the provider’s homes. 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 were benefiting from sustained improvements to the service they received. Their care and support was individualised reflecting their preferences, routines and lifestyle choices. Staff understood people well anticipating their emotions, helping them to stay calm. People’s health and wellbeing were promoted. They had access to a range of healthcare professionals. Their medicines were safely administered at times to suit them. People’s dietary needs were considered when offering them a choice of meals, snacks and drinks. Fortified foods and drinks were provided to those at risk of malnutrition. People at risk of developing pressure ulcers were provided with equipment to protect their skin and staff followed strategies to prevent deterioration in their skin. People had discussed their end of life wishes which were respected. A relative said, “You all went the extra mile for her in her last few days, and [Name] and I are extremely grateful for your dedication.”

People’s care records were kept up to date with their changing needs. They and their relatives were involved in developing their care and support. Information was shared with other agencies and organisations, when needed, to ensure a smooth transition between services. People were kept safe from the risk of abuse. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures and were confident management would take the appropriate action. 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 supported this practice. People had access to a range of meaningful activities which included visits by people and children living in their local community. Visitors were made to feel welcome and arrangements could be made for private dining.

People were supported by staff who had been through a robust recruitment process before starting work. Staff had access to a range of training to equip them with the skills and knowledge they needed to meet people’s needs. Staff were supported to develop in their roles. Disciplinary procedures were in place should they be needed. The registered manager was open and accessible and understood the challenges of introducing change management. There were plans to recognise best practice and to introduce staff champions in key areas.

People, their relatives and staff had a variety of ways to express their views about the service. Their feedback was used to drive through improvements. Quality assurance processes were in place to monitor the standard of the service provided. Accidents, incidents and complaints were monitored. Lessons were learnt when things went wrong and action taken to prevent issues reoccurring. A relative commented, “I would not hesitate to recommend your services for your professionalism and compassion.”