You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 8 July 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Parkside Care Home on 8 July 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Parkside Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 19 November 2018

During a routine inspection

Parkside is residential care home for up to 72 people, that provides a service to both older and younger adults, and people who may have physical disabilities. The service is registered to provide accommodation in addition to personal and nursing care to people. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The home offers 72 en-suite bedrooms and multiple communal rooms, kitchenettes, dining rooms and additional bathrooms across three floors. A spacious rear garden further offers additional space for people to use. All floors are accessible by an operating lift and stairs.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated good

The service continues to keep people safe. Recruitment procedures and staff deployment ensured that sufficient staff are employed to support people and help keep them safe. Risk assessments continued to consider least restrictive options to enable people to continue engaging in activities that they appreciate and brings them joy.

Medicine management continued to be provided in a safe way, with audits illustrating that people received their medicines in a timely way and how they wished. Medicines were stored correctly, and ordered to ensure that people were not without their medicines at any point.

Staff training was kept up to date, and a plan was being actioned to ensure appropriate supervisions and appraisals took place that allowed reflective practice.

People's needs were assessed initially upon admission, and thereafter reviewed monthly to ensure care was the most appropriate. People were encouraged to personalise their rooms in a style that they preferred, with furnishings that brought a personal touch to their rooms.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible. This included making decisions about their care, food choice as well as activities. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff approach remained caring. People were supported by a staff team that knew them well, and ensured they enabled them to maintain their independence, and retain things important to them. Where care support was required, people's dignity and privacy was maintained. People communicated in their preferred way, with records clearly highlighting this.

The service continued to focus on the delivery of person centred care. Care plans were written for people, detailing how they wished to be supported. Activities, both in-house and external were responsive to peoples preferences. With specific activities created for people to enhance their well-being.

The service continued to be well-led. There was a clear vision and direction from the senior management team that reflected on staff practice. A new manager had been appointed who was in their induction process. Whilst new to the service, they hoped they could bring their expertise forward to ensure the service continued to progress in the right direction. An open door policy was practiced, whereby staff were able to approach the management team and discuss any issues.

Good community links were created, and the service worked efficiently with visiting health professionals. The service continued to have good governance and reflective practice, ensuring compliance with the regulations.

Further information is in the detailed findings within the report.

Inspection carried out on 25 February 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place over two days on 25 and 29 February 2016, and was unannounced.

Parkside House Nursing Home is a care home that offers accommodation for people who require personal and nursing care. The service is registered to provide a service for up to 75 people, over three floors. Each floor is run by a unit manager who is a registered nurse. Additional support is provided to the service by the clinical lead and the registered manager, who both having nursing backgrounds.

The home is required to have a registered manager. The manager has been in post since January 2015. 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.

Staff knew how to keep people safe. They were aware of the reporting structures and the need to report concerns promptly and confidentially. They were familiar with procedures that were clearly outlined in training as well as the service’s own policies and procedures. Comprehensive processes for recruitment of staff were in place to ensure suitable employment and the protection of people against the risk of abuse. Sufficient staffing numbers of highly trained and experienced staff were provided by the service to ensure the needs of people were met. Deployment of staff was discussed with the manager during the course of the inspection, which was appropriately responded to. A rolling training programme was in place, which focused on providing the company’s mandatory training as a minimum standard, with additional supporting, training offered in line with best practice.

Good caring practice was observed over both days of the inspection. People and their relatives said they were very pleased with the support and care provided. People and where appropriate their relatives, were involved in the development and reviewing of care plans. These were well documented, detailing individual preferences well and were reflective of the person’s needs. Risk assessments specific to the person were contained in files, with guidance on how to manage these risks should they occur.

Responsive practice was observed during the course of the inspection. The service went above and beyond in trying to respond to people’s needs and those of their relatives. Where people were unable to access the community for activities that they enjoyed, the community was brought to them.

Staff and people reconfirmed observations of good communication. The service offered an open door policy, giving people, staff and visitors the opportunity to speak with management at any time. People told us that they were treated with respect, at all times. Staff always ensured they preserved people’s dignity when working with them. This was observed during the inspection.

People were supported by a team of staff who were competency checked prior to being given responsibility for care. Medicines were kept and managed securely. These were observed as being administered in line with good practice. Comprehensive records were kept of guidelines for as required medicines. Audits were completed regularly and showed no medicine errors.

People who were unable to make particular decisions for themselves, had their legal rights protected. Best interest decisions were clearly recorded in care files when people were unable to make decisions for themselves or lacked the capacity. The provider was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The DoLS provides protection legally for people who are vulnerable or may become deprived of their liberty.

The quality of the service was monitored by Bupa. Feedback was obtained from people, visitors, families and stakeholders and used to improve and make any relevant changes to the service. Comprehensive audits

Inspection carried out on 15 April 2013

During a routine inspection

We found that staff asked people living in the home for their consent before they proceeded with any care or treatment. Staff also told us why consent was important to the people they support.

People's care and treatment was planned and delivered appropriately. People told us that they felt well cared for and that staff understood their needs and preferences. One person told us "the care is excellent".

The home was well maintained, clean and free from odours. People we spoke with told us that there rooms were cleaned on a daily basis. One person told us "mum's room is always spotlessly clean".

There were appropriate recruitment processes and pre employment checks for new staff. We saw records to confirm this. People we spoke with told us they felt staff were well trained and experienced.

Parkside House had a comprehensive assessment and monitoring process to check the quality of service. We found that staff and people living in the home were regularly asked their views and these were acted upon.

The home had a compliant policy which was available to all people living in the home and staff. People told us that they had raised concerns in the past and these were dealt with swiftly.

Inspection carried out on 25 May 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with 14 people who used the service. All were complimentary about the quality of services provided. They commented that staff were always "approachable", "kind" "helpful" and "professional" and seemed knowledgeable about their needs. The majority of people told us the food was "tasty and well-cooked" and they were provided with a choice of meals. However, one person commented "there is too much mince on the menu" and another said "the menu is rather repetitive".

People who lived at the home told us they had spacious comfortable rooms that were always kept clean, tidy and well maintained. People told us the home was always "well-kept and homely".

At the time of our visit the majority of people had chosen to sit outside in the sunshine or in the shade of a gazebo on the back lawn. People said they enjoyed sitting in the gardens when the weather was nice. Several people were entertaining their visitors outside. One person said "you cant really ask for more, than enjoying a glass of lemonade with good company" another said "what could be nicer than sitting in the sun, on a lovely summers day".

We spoke with five relatives who told us they were always kept informed of their family member's progress and welfare. They told us they were always welcomed and offered appropriate hospitality including refreshments. They said they felt they could visit whenever they wanted.

Inspection carried out on 20 May 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

We spoke to eight people that were living at the home and three relatives. Generally people were satisfied with the quality of care provided at the home. We received comments such as "very caring staff", "they do everything I ask of them" and "it's not my own home but it�s the nearest thing". One person said that they felt "rushed by staff" another said "there is never enough staff in places like this, but they do their best". One relative told us they had looked at several homes before choosing Parkside House for their mother. They told us "this home seemed lovely and clean and staff were very welcoming, I knew it was going to be the right one for mum" the relative also said "Mum likes it here, she has settled well". Generally people told us that the food was "good" and "well cooked". The home was "maintained well" and was always "clean and fresh".

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)