Parkside Nursing Home Also known as Part of the abbey total care group ltd group of services

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

At the previous assessment, the service was found to be in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care. At this assessment, we found the service is no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 64 (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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. We received mixed feedback from some family members about their level engagement in care planning meetings. We were told, “I was not invited to (person’s) care planning meeting, I was sent it and when I read it, there are quite a lot of duplications in it and some corrections needed to be made” and “I received a copy of the care plan, but I was not included in the process.” We identified some inconsistencies in people’s care plans, for example, one person’s mobility care plan contained conflicting information about how this should be managed. However, staff we spoke with had a good understanding of this person’s mobility needs and there was no impact on the person. Another care plan had a repositioning chart, which did not specify the frequency with which the person should be repositioned. We have considered these inconsistencies under the well-led key question.However, we saw that people’s care was delivered according to their identified needs, for example, where their care plan recommended hourly monitoring, this was evidenced in their notes. We also saw there were robust plans and protocols in place specific to specific conditions including diabetes, foot care and an autoimmune disorder. There were established systems in place to ensure people’s care needs were regularly reviewed and met their current needs. This included ‘resident of the day’ which meant there was a full audit, review and update of this person’s records, including health, care and social needs.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The manager told us the staff team worked alongside other health professionals to ensure people’s needs were met. Records we reviewed confirmed this, and reflected how staff had contacted external professionals for specific advice about people’s care. Care plans were stored electronically so staff across the home could view them, which helped staff provide continuity of care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We found relevant service information was displayed throughout the communal areas of the service to make it accessible for people and their visitors. Information was presented to people to assist with decision making, for example through the use of pictorial menus, and show plates so people could see what was for lunch and assist them to choose. People told us they felt well informed, and “kept up to date,” with events happening within the service. We were shown examples of newsletters used within the home, to keep people and relatives updated on events and when new people moved into the service. People’s preferred method of communication was recorded in their care plans. For those with specific communication needs, staff told us they also observed people’s body language and behaviours to better understand and respond to them.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and helped them understand any changes. People, relatives and staff all had access to regular meetings to ensure they were kept informed of events within the service. Relatives told us they were given the opportunity to make suggestions, many of which were acted upon, “We can share ideas for improvement in relative’s meetings and they act on it. We asked for a second television for the lounge and got one. Residents now have a choice in terms of what to watch.” People knew how to raise a complaint and that it would be taken seriously, “I’ve not had any issues but if I had I would contact the manager or a member of staff about it and am confident they would follow the process.” We reviewed the provider’s complaints log, and saw complaints which were formally raised, were responded to in a timely way and in accordance with the provider’s complaints policy.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. If people chose, they were supported to complete a Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) plan. ReSPECT plans are used to document a person’s wishes for their clinical care in emergency situations, where the person would not be able to make decisions or express their wishes. The person also had an opportunity to express whether they wished to have cardiopulmonary resuscitation at that time.