Updated 15 September 2025
Date of Assessment: 22 September to 30 September 2025. Park View is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to people who are autistic and/or have a learning disability. Thehome is based in a residential area within walking distance of the town centre and sea front. The service is registered to accommodate up to 4 people. At the time of the inspection 3 people were living in the main house and 1 person was living in the self-contained annex.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
We found 4 breaches of the legal regulation relating to safe care and treatment, staffing, consent and good governance.
The service demonstrated significant shortfalls in safety. Systems for documenting incidents were in place but were not effectively monitored or followed up, leading to potential recurring risks. Safeguarding practices were inconsistent. Risk assessments and care plans were often outdated. While the environment was generally safe and clean, and people felt safe, there were notable shortfalls in medicines management, staff training and risk management. Improvements were needed in relation to infection control and safe recruitment. These shortfalls put people at risk of unsafe care and support.
Assessment and review of people’s needs was inconsistent, with care plans and health action plans often outdated or incomplete. While some positive examples of person-centred care and family involvement were shared or observed, the provider did not always ensure care was regularly reviewed or that outcomes were monitored and improved. There were gaps in evidence-based practice, particularly around consent and the Mental Capacity Act, as the service did not follow correct procedures in assessing if people lacked capacity. Although staff worked well with external professionals and supported people’s needs, documentation and follow-up on health interventions were inconsistent.
Staff consistently treated people with kindness, dignity, and respect, fostering a caring and supportive atmosphere. People’s relatives and representatives described positive relationships with staff, who were attentive to individual needs and preferences. Communication needs were met, and people were supported to maintain independence and participate in activities of their choice. However, care documentation was not always up to date, and there was limited evidence of regular reviews involving people and their representatives. Despite this, staff and relatives highlighted the positive impact on people’s lives.
The service was generally responsive to people’s immediate needs and provided support in a timely and respectful manner. However, person-centred care planning and risk assessments were not always current. While people had access to activities and the community, and information was provided in accessible formats, feedback and suggestions were not always acted upon. Planning for future needs was inconsistent, with some people lacking documented support for life changes or long-term goals.
Leadership and governance were inconsistent, with a lack of strategy and robust systems for governance and improvement and a vision which was not always clear. Audits and action plans failed to drive timely improvements. Despite the current management being described as inclusive and approachable and positive feedback about partnership working, the provider did not demonstrate a strong culture of learning, innovation, or continuous improvement, and governance shortfalls persisted across key areas.