Park View

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed warm and respectful interaction between staff and people who used the service. People seemed comfortable around staff and able to approach them.

Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect and they appeared to know their personalities and likes and dislikes well.

A relative told us; “I just wanted to say that the staff who work with [person] have a very good understanding of his needs and are very caring and supportive to him and us as a family.

It is lovely for [person] to know that we all get on well together and that he cantell any of us if he is not happy or there are issues, and they will be dealt with appropriately and fairly to all parties.”

One person’s representative told us; “Staff are always seen to be kind and helpful, going out of their way to share their knowledge of the person and autism.”

A healthcare professional told us; “The staff are equally as lovely. They are welcoming to me and make me, as a regular visitor, feel appreciated and one of the team.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals and make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care documentation, whilst individual and designed by the provider’s policy to provide robust information about the person, was generally out of date. This included reviews of people goals and outcomes and evidence of them and their representatives being involved in this process.

People’s communication needs were met to enable them to engage in their care, treatment and support to maximise their experience and outcomes. We observed good interaction with people who had different ways of communicating.

We were told that meetings with people who used the service were held but we did not see records of these to understand what had been actioned and what the outcomes were. We saw records of menu choices which were discussed with people on a weekly basis.

People’s bedrooms were decorated according to their preferences and were personalised. People had access to and shared all areas of the service, including the open plan kitchen and dining room, lounge, bathroom and downstairs toilet. We discussed with the management team our observations about one person’s reluctance to use one of the communal sitting rooms when another person returned to the service from an outing.

A relative told us; “They also make sure that [person] remembers our birthdays and Christmas and support him to make and buy lovely presents for us which are always personalised very well and are [person’s] choice. Last year [person] wanted a knitting machine and supported [person] to make each of us and himself a lovely bobble hat.”

Other comments from people’s relatives included; “lots of activities are available and we are very happy with what is provided” and “He is active in the community, and they involve him in decision making.”

One person’s representative told us; “I believe Park View staff’sprofessionalism and genuine interest in [person] has made a significant positive difference in his life journey. [Staff name] and [staff name] have gone out of their way to try and understand [person’s] challenges and work with him to achieve better more positive outcomes.”

A healthcare professional told us; “Their levels of support and carefortheir residents is very clear to see, the whole house, staff and residents, are one big family and I am very pleased to be part of their group.”

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing

People generally led active lives; however, records did not consistently reflect that their skills, life experiences, and strengths were regularly and contemporaneously discussed with them and those involved in their care to support planning and achieving their short, medium, and long-term goals, ambitions, and outcomes.

People’s 1:1 support hours were planned and evidenced on the staff rota. Staff told us people chose when they wanted this support and what to do. Where people only had a set amount of 1:1 support hours, there was flexibility in the allocation to accommodate if they wanted to do something in particular.

During out visit we observed people being active outside of the service, for example attending a day activity centre, into the local town or nearby towns or the garden centre. We also observed people being involved in cooking their evening meal, something they took turns in doing. However, for one person, staff were not always proactive in offering creativeopportunities for in house activities when they chose not to go out, leaving them spending time around the kitchen area, despite them sharing with us that they enjoyed things like gardening and watching a particular gameshow on tv.

During one of our visits, one person was being supported with a Spanish themed evening which involved cooking a traditional meal followed by a theme related activity. The person presented very content with the meal their prepared and staff supported them to take a photo to send to their family.

We saw daily records which identified what people had been engaged in doing around the service, for example cleaning, watching tv, playing on the tablet computer or knitting and, in the community, such as: going for a drive in the car, into town and to the pub.

Feedback from relatives related to people’s independence included; “They are supporting him with his independence and keyworker support.” and “Discussions and pictorial methods”.

A staff member told us; “Feel that the residents are so well looked after and achieve so much, living their best life her, so much variety in their life.”. They also shared that; “The implications of the lack of staffing does take a toll on the paperwork side. Would like to spend more time on this if it was available.”

People were supported to maintain relationships and had access to their families and advocates where needed. People had visitors to the service and families were encouraged to visit. There were no restrictions on visiting.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff responded to people’s requests for support and took time to communicate and engage with them about their immediate needs. Staff appeared to know people and could anticipate what they needed and how they liked their support to be provided.They responded to people’s needs quickly enough to avoid any preventable discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed a very positive example of this which involved an interaction between 2 staff members and a person during preparation to go out on an activity. Staff were very prompt in recognising when the person was becoming anxious following advice given by one of the staff members and calmly and kindly supported the person to make an informed choice without becoming further distressed.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt listened to and thought the management team was responsive to their suggestions, views or concerns.

On staff member told us; “[staff member] feel that people [who use the service] do appreciate what we do, and their behaviours show our work”. Another staff member told us that access to an occupational health service was available if needed.

There were systems in place to offer support to staff if needed such as an employee assistance helpline.