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

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

At the previous assessment, the service was found to be in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service. At this assessment, we found the service is no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 68 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. The service had a motivated leadership team who were continuing to drive changes and improvement within the culture of the service and staff team, and were observed to lead by example. Staff spoke positively about their roles and told us they felt supported in their work. They also said and knew how to seek advice, guidance and support, “We are like one big family here, the work comes with many pressures and managers make it easier for us.” People and their relatives had opportunities to give their views and opinions during meetings with staff and management. They were kept up to date with the events within the service through newsletters. Most people told us that communication with the manager and staff at the home was good, “I always receive a response if I raise anything the managers,” and “I can’t fault them in terms of effective communication.” However, others told us, “There is room for improvement in terms of methods of communication about significant issues,” and “Some aspects of communications might be improved, they could be more proactive.”

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty. There was a clear management structure within the service and an ‘open door’ policy whereby they encouraged people using the service, relatives and staff to speak to them about any issues or concerns. The manager, staff and members of the senior leadership team who were on site on the day responded to inspectors in an open and honest way throughout the assessment. People told us, “The manager does their best to follow things up and she listens and tries to change things if they need changing.” Staff spoke positively about the leadership team and said, “[The leadership team] are all approachable,” and “It’s amazing, the managers are good and have the right skills to run the home. They are open and honest and approachable.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. They proactively encouraged a culture openness and regularly gathered feedback from people living in Parkside Nursing Home, their relatives and staff, through meetings and surveys which was used to develop continuously improve the service. Feedback from staff was additionally gathered through individual supervision with managers. Staff said they were confident they could raise concerns with the management team and would be respected for doing so. They understood how to raise a whistleblowing concern and were clear about when and how to escalate any concerns. People and relatives told us that the registered manager was approachable. Those who had raised concerns told us that there were systems to investigate issues.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. Staff told us they were happy at the service, felt supported and had the right support in place to enable them to do their jobs well. Staff told us, "I feel valued and the morale here is good."

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes. Whilst overall, we found the service to have made considerable improvements to return to compliance with the regulations, there remained some aspects of governance and provider level oversight that continued to need further improvements and review. We liaised with the provider’s representatives as part of the inspection process, and received assurances regarding the ongoing measures and oversight the provider will continue to have to ensure these shortfalls are addressed. However, there was a strong commitment to on-going improvement and since the last inspection, the provider developed a senior leadership team which provided consistent support and oversight and worked alongside the service manager to continue to drive improvements.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. They actively sought feedback from people and their families about the quality of resident and family meetings. Staff and managers told us about positive working relationships with health and social care professionals, we saw referrals were made appropriately and professional advice was updated in people’s care records for staff to follow. Collaboration with external stakeholders included healthcare professionals, local authority social work and safeguarding teams, Quality in Care Home Liaison team and allied healthcare professionals. Health and social care professionals gave positive feedback, and we saw that meetings and reviews had been held to discuss people’s needs and plan how best to meet them. A healthcare professional told us, “The service has engaged with our service and has been open and transparent in the safety Huddle meetings.” The provider encouraged representatives of the local religious communities to regularly provide religious and pastoral support, according to people’s individual choices. On the day of the assessment, there was a service run by a pastor in the communal lounge, which was attended by several people. Other community engagement included live music entertainment, visits by relatives’ dogs and a range of talks, including historical ones.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. The overall level of improvement and return to compliance with the regulations following our last inspection demonstrated a clear commitment to learn, improve and respond to the enforcement action taken by CQC. This in turn ensured people received the improved levels of care they were entitled to. We observed evidence of strong leadership with clear plans around how the service wished to continue to improve and embed ongoing changes.There were processes in place to ensure that learning happened when things went wrong. These included clinical review meetings and daily heads of department meetings. Root cause analyses were undertaken and the findings were widely shared with staff to encourage reflection and learning, as well as to adapt working practice to ensure issues were not repeated. A healthcare professional told us, “I feel that the management team does reflectand learn from incidents.” Staff told us the management team reviewed incidents and events and shared learning with them for improvement and development. The provider supported staff to develop their skills and encouraged them to, for example, to undertake nursing training. They also encouraged staff to become Champions in an area of special interest to them, where they would be supported to develop their ideas to improve and innovate in that area.