Park View

Park View is a residential care home providing personal care to up to 87 people. The service provides support to older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 82 people living in the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Risks to people’s safety were assessed. People’s risk assessment documentation was not always detailed; however, people were supported by a consistent staff team who knew them well and understood their needs. There were enough staff available to provide support and people told us staff were prompt to respond when they required help. Staff were safely recruited, with the relevant employment checks completed prior to them starting work.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how to raise any concerns around people’s safety or wellbeing. Processes were in place to manage people’s medicines safely and staff had received medicines training. Staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment [PPE] and had receiving training in infection prevention and control.

The provider had processes in place for monitoring the safety and quality of the service and sought regular feedback from people, relatives, and staff in order to identify and address any areas of improvement. The provider had built positive working partnerships with other healthcare professionals in order to meet people’s changing needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People and relatives spoke positively about the culture and leadership of the service and the care people received from staff. Staff felt supported and valued in their roles. The management team were committed to continuously improving people’s care and creating a warm and welcoming environment where people achieved good outcomes.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 03 March 2018).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

We undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has remained good based on the findings of this inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Park View on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

There was a registered manager 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.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

People remained safe at the service. Checks were carried out on staff before they started work with people to assess their suitability to care for vulnerable people. Staff understood their role and responsibilities to keep people safe from harm.

Staff had a good understanding of risks associated with people's care needs and how to support them. Medicines were stored and administered safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed. Regular audits ensured medicines were managed in line with good practice guidelines.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. The management and staff team understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were cared for and supported by staff that understood their needs and knew them well. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and were sensitive to their needs regarding equality, diversity and their human rights. The care and support people received was individualised. They were offered a range of activities both at the service and in the local community.

There was a clear management structure in place. The manager and other senior staff were well liked and respected by people and staff.

There was a friendly, relaxed atmosphere and staff were kind and attentive in their approach. It was clear from the chatter and laughter at lunchtime that mealtimes were relaxed and informal. People told us, and we could see for ourselves, that they could choose what to eat from a choice of freshly prepared food.

The registered manager sought feedback about the quality of the service provided to people and/or family members, staff and visiting health professionals. There was an on-going quality monitoring process in place to identify areas of improvement required within the service. Action was taken when an area for improvement had been identified.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found;

Is the service safe?

We saw that the staff were provided with regular training in safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant that staff had the knowledge that they needed to ensure that people were safeguarded. The service had recently made a DoLS referral to the local authority which had been made correctly.

People's care records showed that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. The records were regularly reviewed and updated which meant that staff were provided with up to date information about how people's needs were to be met.

We saw records which showed that the health and safety in the service was regularly checked.

Is the service effective?

Relatives of people who used the service told us that they were happy with the service and that it delivered care effectively. One person told us, 'I have booked my place.' Another person said, 'My (relative) has her ups and downs but due to the good care, love and support from all staff she bounces back and is happy here.'

We saw that the service conducted regular staff supervision and training was delivered as required. This meant that staff had the support and skills to deliver care effectively.

Is the service caring?

We saw that all staff interactions were kind and respectful. We saw staff supporting people to enjoy the good weather in the garden.

We observed staff treating people with compassion and patience when they became distressed or disorientated.

Is the service responsive?

People's choices were taken in to account and listened to. We observed staff asking people what they needed and waited for them to respond before providing further support.

People's care records showed that where concerns about their wellbeing had been identified the staff had taken appropriate action to ensure that people were provided with the support they needed. This included seeking support and guidance from health care professionals, including a doctor, district nurses, mental health teams and chiropodists.

Is the service well-led?

Staff told us that they were able to speak to the manager or senior staff when they needed to and that they received regular supervision, training and support. The service had a quality assurance system and records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continually improving.

The service was supported by a manager that was hands on and who empowered the staff team to work together to deliver good care. We observed that the manager was available to staff and relatives at all times.

The manager had systems in place to ensure that they addressed any staff shortfalls or concerns and dealt with any concerns as required

We saw that care plans and risk assessments were appropriate for people who used the service. Care plans were reviewed regularly or sooner if there had been changes in a person's condition.

We saw that people were given assistance with their medications and offered as required medications if they needed them. We found that medications were not always stored or administered correctly.

We found that there was not always sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs.

Staff were supported to undertake training and development. Staff told us they felt supported by management. We saw that staff had access to regular meetings and supervisions.

There was a comprehensive complaints policy in place and we saw the service responded appropriately to complaints.