Turning Point - Parkview

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did were not always well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect.

This service scored 40 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. During our first site visit, we observed staff supporting a person to use the toilet with the door open and another person receiving personal care in a communal space with inadequate screening. Relatives gave mixed feedback about whether people received kind, compassionate care. A relative said, “Staff are opening the door to me whilst listening to the headphones, no interaction with residents – they are sitting at other end of the room from them.“ They went on to say, “My [Family Member] is noticeably miserable.” During our site visits, while staff interactions were generally kind, engagement was minimal and primarily task-oriented, such as offering drinks. Communication was childlike in language or tone, including instances of staff mimicking individuals’ words, blowing kisses, or using terms like “Baba.” Although not intended to cause harm, this way of communicating with people was infantilizing and compromised dignity.

Relatives expressed concern that people’s basic care needs were not met and described occasions when they had observed staff ignoring when a person required support with personal care. They described an occasion when a person’s clothing was not put on properly, and another where their pad was put on back to front. This put people at risk of being left uncomfortable and of developing sore and damaged skin due to moisture or clothing rubbing. This standard of care did not promote dignify or demonstrate people were valued.

Following our assessment, the provider shared examples of observations they have since completed at the service to identify areas for staff development.

The service did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. The provider did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Although staff had some knowledge of people’s preferences in relation to music or cartoons, there was little evidence to demonstrate they had fully explored their unique interests and preferences and developed each person’s care based on this information. Care plans contained some information about peoples’ preferences but there was little evidence of this information being used to demonstrated they were working to improve engagement promote positive engagements with people. For example, staff offered 1 person a magazine, which they accepted. However, the staff member just walked away rather than engaging with the person to look at the magazine. There was very little information recorded to identify people’s needs and preferences in relation to any protected characteristics.

Following our assessment, the provider demonstrated they were working to improve engagement within the service and had carried out some practice observations and refresher training for staff. They report they had seen some improvements since.

The service did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People had little to do. Relatives were concerned about a lack of meaningful occupations for people. A relative said, “[There is] nothing really – watching television. It is on a lot.” Although there were occasional trips out these were sometimes weeks apart. Records showed activities for most people comprised of watching television, listening to music or the radio. During our site visit on 24 July 2025 there were occasions where 2 sources of music were playing in the same room as well as a television that was muted with subtitles. As no one living at the service was able to read, it was unlikely the television was on for the service users’ benefit. People were not active partners in their support. Staff carried out tasks without involving people, who appeared to be in a constant state of waiting. There were no plans or visual cues to help people have a predictable structure to their day to help them have control over their lives. Although people’s care plans identified a need for stimulation and structure, this had not been acted on.

Following this assessment, the provider confirmed they were working with the staff team to make improvements to both practice and documentation.

The provider did not listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s physical needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. However, we observed most staff lacked skills and understanding about how to support people’s social, emotional and psychological needs and missed opportunities to engage with people who were showing signs of boredom and frustration.

Following this assessment, the provider told us staff had completed further training in emotional support techniques and reported improvements in engagement had been observed during internal audits.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. The service had recently undergone management changes as well as the wider team. Staff gave positive feedback about these changes, feeling morale had improved as they were better supported and had clearer expectations of what was expected of them. The provider recognised the team had experienced a difficult period and was keen to support them as employees and individuals as well as to develop their skills. They recognised the positive impact on the care delivered by staff when they felt supported at work.