Archived: Park Croft

Park Croft is a registered care home and provides accommodation, support and care, for up to 10 people who live with a learning disability. Housing was provided by another provider and United Response provided the care support. During our inspection there were 7 people living at Park Croft.

A registered manager was 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.

Our last inspection took place in May 2014 and we found the provider had not adequately maintained the environment or ensured this was kept clean. We asked the provider to take action to address this and found at this inspection, they had done so.

People said they felt safe and well cared for by staff who were knowledgeable of their needs. Observations showed staff were kind and caring. They were respectful in their interactions with people and engaged people positively. They showed a good understanding of people’s needs and their right to privacy and dignity. Staff knowledge of safeguarding was good and they were confident concerns would be reported and action taken where needed. Risks associated with people’s needs were well known and managed effectively by staff. Care plans were person centred and reflected people’s likes, dislikes and preferences. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and drink and they had access to a range of health care services to ensure their needs were met.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. People were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. Where people were unable to make these decisions, staff knew the process they should take to ensure that any decisions made were in the person’s best interests. However, records were not always available or reviewed. We have made a recommendation about this. The manager understood when a DoLS application may be needed and these had been submitted.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff on duty at all times to meet people’s needs. Recruitment procedures ensured safe recruitment of staff and staff received training and supervisions to support them in the role.

Staff spoke positively of the home and felt the manager was open, transparent and approachable. Feedback was sought from people and action taken to address any complaints. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service and drive improvement.

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led? Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People were treated kindly and with dignity and respect by staff. People told us about their satisfaction with the home and told us they felt safe. Staff were clear they would report concerns to the manager and these would be actioned. There was a system in place for recording of incidents and staff could describe to us how this information was used to improve the service for people.

We looked at the staffing levels and skill mix within the home. Suitable numbers of staff were on shift throughout the day and night. Staff received a variety of training including; challenging behaviour, first aid, food hygiene and the provider supported staff to complete the Health and Social Care Qualification and Credit Framework if the wished to undertake this.

CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) which applies to care homes. Management we spoke with had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, DoLS and their responsibility in this.

The provider had some systems in place to ensure that the safety and suitability of premise were maintained for the people living at the home. This included all appropriate gas, fire and electrical checks. However, not all of these were effective and we found some aspects of the home requiring maintenance which had not been completed and there was no plan in place to address this. Areas of the home were not clean at the time of our inspection and the systems in place to ensure the cleanliness of the home were not effective. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to the safety and suitably of the home and infection control requirements.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed and care plans were developed to enable staff to support people in the way they not only chose but also required. Where there were risks associated with people's care and treatment these had been assessed and agreed actions to reduce these risks had been identified. This meant people received care which was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by staff who were kind and patient in their approach. We saw care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when they supported people. People described their satisfaction with the home. One person told us, 'I like it'. A second person told us, 'It's my home'.

Is the service responsive?

Staff knew how to recognise when people were not happy and had approaches in place to support them with this. Where necessary the home worked with other professionals to ensure the support provided met all the needs of people living at the home.

Is the service well-led?

All of the staff and people who used the service said they felt supported and listened to. Staff told us they were confident issues of concern would be acted upon.

We saw there were systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service including relative's questionnaires, monthly review meetings for people and regular staff meetings. Other systems included unplanned provider visits and quarterly reports from the home to the provider.

We saw learning from incidents took place and meetings to share this learning were held with staff.

We also spoke to, three family members and a visiting community nurse. All were positive about the standard of care in the home and spoke highly of the staff who worked there.

We saw that care plans were clear and detailed and kept under regular review. There was evidence to show that people's capacity to consent to their care had been assessed and suitable arrangements were in place to ensure decisions were made in their best interests if they were deemed not to have capacity. Staff told us they had enough information and support to do their jobs week, although one staff member told us that it would be helpful if the manager worked hands on at times, but appreciated that they were busy.

We looked at the procedures for storing and administering medicines and found them to be safe and suitable to needs of the people living there.

The home was clean and people's rooms were personalised and adapted to their needs. However, there were areas which looked unsafe and in need of repair and redecoration.

There was a suitable recruitment procedure in place that protected people. There was also a suitable complaints procedure and records were kept and complaints handled appropriately.

People were supported to be as independent as they able and wished to be. Staff were observed to speak to people in a calm, friendly and unhurried manner allowing time for response.

People's care needs were identified in person centred plans and we saw that these had been updated as people's needs had changed. The support plans provided staff with structured guidelines that also respected people's wishes.

The service had systems in place to ensure people were protected from abuse, or the risk of abuse and their rights were respected and upheld. Staff had an understanding of safeguarding issues and how to report abuse or allegations of abuse.

We observed people were supported by adequate flexible numbers of staff, all of whom received ongoing training to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to meet people's needs.

We saw that there was a quality assurance system in place that allowed for the service to conduct their own regular reviews to ensure that they service was delivered in a safe and suitable way that met the needs of people. People and their relatives views were taken in account in the way the service was delivered