Park View

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Most of the care documentation and risk assessments had not been reviewed and updated to ensure they reflect people’s up to date physical, mental, emotional and social needs or risks to their safety. Some of people’s records did not evidence recent involvement in planning their care and support.

We were told that people had meetings with their keyworkers however, these were not being documented.

Staff communicated well with people and treated them with kindness. There was positive staff interaction with people which was encouraging and respectful. We observed a person being supported by staff to clean their room. Staff positively engaged with the person consistently through the task, providing guidance and encouragement and supporting hands only when needed to maximise the person’s independence. They communicated and interacted with them in such a way, that if they indicated they may become anxious, this was deescalated.

People’s relatives told us they felt involved in their loved one’s care. A relative told us; “He [person] also has a good core team of staff who have known him a long time.”

One person told us; “Really like it here. Just fine here. Can be here the rest of my life.”

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

We saw evidence that referral to health professionals were made to support people’s changing health needs; however, records did not consistently include the outcome of these referrals or the guidance provided.

There was evidence that the service referred one person to the provider’s positive behaviour support team requesting support following observed changes in behaviour, however at the time of our assessment this had not yet been addressed.

People received mostly consistent care from staff who had got to know people well.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Individual communication needs were recorded within people’s support guidelines which had been recently updated. Staff were aware of each person’s communication style.

Information, for example related to safeguarding and fire safety was made available to people in an easy read format in the communal areas.

Menus and the staff rota for the week was available in picture format. In one person’s care folder we saw an example of their easy read “People we support service guide”.

Staff explained to us how they used social stories, for example to discuss the annual flu vaccination.

Feedback from people and their relatives was gathered in 2024, and although we saw the individually completed responses these had not been collated and any actions identified, or outcomes shared.

The service had a suggestions box by the front entrance. We were told that one person in particular would post suggestions in the box, however, it was unclear how these were recorded or acted upon.

We were told that meetings with people were taking place however, there were no records of these.

Most relatives told us that knew how to raise concerns and who to speak with. One relative told us they would usually go to the manager and seniors, but they were now concerned over who to go to due to lack of oversight.

The provider mostly made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People did have access to services and there was joint working between the service and other health and social care agencies.Records of people’s health appointments did not provide us with a robust overview of when people had received or declined treatment.

People had equal access to the shared environment which was accessible to them. Everyone who used the service received care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People were supported to do things they enjoyed doing outside of the service. During our site visits we observed people being supporting on an individual basis, for example, to the shops to purchase items they enjoyed and to buy lunch which they had by the seaside. One person was accessing a nearby day centre. Another person told us about their trip to the garden centre where they had lunch and their plans to go for a local walk later that evening.

People were not always consistently supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Systems were in place to discuss, review and document people’s both short term and long-term goals, involving them and their relatives. However, for some people records indicated this had not been carried out for some time. For example, for 1 person living at the service since 2023, there was no evidence of this being completed in line with the provider’s processes.

Staff provide us with an example of how they supported 1 person to develop their confidence in accessing the community. They explained how they supported them to plan a trip to a favourite car racing event by taking encouraging small local trips to prepare them for the longer journey to the event. Despite the person choosing not to take this trip, progress was made by them going out to different towns and in the car. They also told us that the person wished to live independently closer to their family, but that there were limitations to this. We did not see information in relation to this goal in their most recent care documentation.