The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Park View

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

1 Westfield Road, Burnham On Sea, Somerset, TA8 2AW (01278) 789444

Provided and run by:
National Autistic Society (The)

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 21 April to 29 April 2026. Park View is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to autistic people and/or people who have a learning disability. The home 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. This was a targeted inspection to follow up on the breaches of regulation identified at the last inspections.

At our previous inspection we had found breaches of regulation. At this inspection we found improvements had been made relating to safe care and treatment, medicines and need for consent. The service was no longer in breach of these regulations.
The provider was also previously in breach of the legal regulation relating to governance and the provider remains in breach of this regulation. Since the last inspection the provider had taken action to put systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, and we found no evidence that people had been placed at risk of harm. However, some of these systems were not fully embedded and were not consistently effective in monitoring the quality and safety of the service or in ensuring that records were properly and accurately maintained. As such, some shortfalls in governance systems remained resulting in a continued breach of regulation in good governance.

The provider had made some improvements to learning from incidents, but analysis of trends and timely learning was not always effective. Safeguarding systems were not robust or consistently effective, resulting in unclear actions and risks not always being promptly addressed.
Risk management had improved overall, but some risk mitigation required to be recorded, and behaviour support plans required further development to be fully effective and clear for staff.
Medicines and infection control were managed safely.
People’s needs had been assessed and reviewed, with care documentation reflecting individual preferences and involving relatives and representatives.
Consent processes followed the Mental Capacity Act, with people, their relatives or representatives involved in decision-making. The provider had begun monitoring outcomes more effectively, with improved reviews and involvement from people and professionals.
Care and support were planned and delivered in line with legislation and good practice, supporting activities and family contact.

During an assessment under our new approach

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.

 

18 March 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Park View is a residential care home. It is based in a residential area of Burnham on Sea within walking distance of the town centre and sea front. The service is registered to accommodate four people. At the time of the inspection two people were living in the main house and one person was living in the self-contained annex.

We found the following examples of good practice.

An area had been set up at the entrance of the home so that hands could be cleaned before staff and visitors entered the building. Health declaration forms were completed on arrival at the home and staff checked visitors’ temperatures.

Staff had received training in infection control, including how to safely put on and take off personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves, aprons, and face coverings. The home had suitable supplies of PPE and we saw staff wearing PPE appropriately.

There was a procedure in place to enable people to meet with their relatives. Staff also supported people to keep in touch with their relatives via video calling, phone calls and emails.

The home was spacious and set out to enable social distancing. Additional cleaning had been implemented throughout the home. This included cleaning frequently touched areas such as handrails, light switches and handles.

There was a procedure in place for new admissions. No one would be admitted without a negative COVID-19 test first and they would isolate for 14 days.

The manager ensured regular COVID-19 testing was carried out for staff. Testing for people living at the home was not carried out due to their complexities. However, staff completed other checks and were aware of the signs and symptoms to look out for relating to COVID-19.

A business continuity plan was in place, to reduce potential disruption to people's care. There were policies and procedures to provide guidance for staff on safe working practices during the pandemic. The provider had a range of communication systems in place.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

11 March 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

•Park View is a residential care home. It is based in a residential area within walking distance of the town centre and sea front. The home can accommodate up to four people who have autism. It is registered to provide personal care. At the time of the inspection the service was delivering personal care to three people.

•The people we met had very complex physical and learning disabilities and not all were able to communicate with us verbally. We therefore used our observations of care and our discussions with staff, relatives and professionals to help form our judgements.

•Two people lived in the main part of the house and one person had self-contained accommodation attached the main house. This person could use the communal parts of the main house when they wished.

•The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Rating at last inspection:

•Good (published 24 October 2016)

Why we inspected:

•This inspection was a scheduled inspection based on the previous rating

People’s experience of using this service:

•People who lived at Park View were supported by sufficient staff who were well trained and knew how to support people living with Autism. We observed people’s requests for support being responded to promptly.

•The quality of interaction between staff and people was excellent. The environment was comfortable and safe. There was good communication making it easier for people to understand.

•People were active and took part in hobbies and interests that had been identified individually. There were events and interesting activities each day and one to one support for people who needed this.

•People planned their own meals and staff supported people to shop for the ingredients. Staff cooked people meals from scratch so that people could enjoy good home cooked food.

•People had good access to healthcare and other professionals. People knew how to complain. Incidents and accidents were minimal and if they occurred staff took appropriate actions.

•People and their families were consulted and involved with every aspect of their lives. A relative told us, “I am involved in everything, and I’ve seen the care plan”. People living at Park View had a fulfilling life.

Follow up:

•We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

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

5 October 2016

During a routine inspection

Park View is in a residential area within walking distance of the town centre and sea front. The ¿home can accommodate up to four people and specialises in providing support to adults who ¿have autism and a learning disability. Three people lived in the main part of the house; one ¿person had self- contained accommodation but did use communal parts of the main house when ¿they wished.¿

This inspection took place on 5 October 2016 and was announced.¿

A registered manager was responsible for the home. 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.¿

We spoke with one person at length and had limited communication with three other people. We ¿also used our observations and discussions with people's relatives and staff to help form our ¿judgements.¿

Staff understood people's needs and provided the care and support they needed. The home was ¿a safe place for people. One person said, “The staff keep me safe.” One relative said, “I think most ¿hazards to [name] have been risk assessed and well thought out.” ¿

People interacted well with staff. Staff knew people and understood their care and support needs. ¿People made choices about their own lives; staff encouraged them to try new things. They were ¿part of their community and were encouraged to be as independent as they could be.¿

Staffing levels were good and people received good support from health and social care ¿professionals.¿

Staff had built close, trusting relationships with people over time. One relative said, “Staff do try to ¿understand [name]. His needs can change and staff do make sure they keep meeting his needs.” ¿

People, and those close to them, were involved in planning and reviewing their care and support. ¿There was a close relationship and good communication with people's relatives. Relatives felt ¿their views were listened to and acted on.¿

Staff were well supported and well trained. Staff spoke highly of the care they were able to ¿provide to people. One staff member said, “I think the care is excellent here. Staff really do care ¿and I think people are happy."¿

There was a management structure in the home, which provided clear lines of responsibility and ¿accountability. All staff worked hard to provide the best level of care possible to people. The aims ¿of the service were well defined and adopted by the staff team.¿

There were effective quality assurance processes in place to monitor care and safety and plan ¿ongoing improvements. There were systems in place to share information and seek people's ¿views about their care and the running of the home.¿

14 January 2014

During a routine inspection

People's rights were protected. The staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of how to support people to make decisions. They knew the procedures to follow where an individual lacked the capacity to consent to their care and treatment.

People's health care needs had been monitored and appropriately responded to. Information about people's health needs and contact with health and social care professionals had been recorded.

The home followed appropriate procedures for the safe management and administration of people's medicines.

We found all areas of the home to be well maintained. The standard of d'cor and furnishings was good and helped to promote a homely feel.

Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service people received.

2 August 2012

During a routine inspection

We reviewed this service as part of our routine planned inspection and included following up concerns raised at the last inspection for outcomes 4, 7 and 16. You will find more detail regarding this under the outcomes mentioned.

We spoke to three out of the four people who lived in the home and asked them about their experiences. All three were able to communicate that they liked living at Park View and staff supported them well. We saw people were encouraged to maintain and develop their independence. Staff told us people made their own meals and were supported with the cleaning of their room and clothes.

We read the results from the latest residents and relatives survey. These were carried out yearly and covered both Park View and the adjacent home Cherry Trees. Some of the comments from people who lived in the homes were 'would like their room decorated' and 'would like more outings to the caf'. Some comments from the relatives were 'would like more information on changing needs' and 'staff are always willing to discuss day to day matters and any queries'.

24 February 2012

During a routine inspection

People who lived in the home who chose to speak with us told us that staff provided the care and support they needed. They said staff were kind to them. We observed how staff interacted with people who lived in the home and all the interactions we saw were kind and respectful. One person we spoke with said that they were happy living at the home, they liked the staff who supported them and chose the things they wished to do. Another person was asked by staff if they wished to speak with us but they declined and this was respected.

Staff ensured people were given the opportunity to make choices. Most people were able to say what they would like and staff respected people's views. One person helped to prepare the evening meal. They told us that they chose the menus each week; staff helped them to do this every Sunday.

People also organised their own person centred meetings to review their care needs. One person told us they had chosen to have their meeting at the home, had decided who to invite, sent out the invitations and had chosen the things they wished to discuss. Their meeting was to be held in March. Their parents were coming and they looked forward to it.

People who lived in the home could become anxious or display aggressive behaviour. People did not have an up to date behaviour support plan or risk assessments which related to their behaviour. There was no evidence that care plans and risk assessments were completed for people who may require the use of restraint to keep them safe.

People who lived in the home did have the opportunity to express their views on the quality of care and support they received at the regular house meetings, in one to one meetings with staff and at their person centred meetings.