Park View

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

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

This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.
 

This service scored 62 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

There had been improvements since our previous inspection. Records we reviewed showed that the provider, through different representatives, was actively involved in monitoring the service and plans were in place for ongoing monitoring.

Staff told us that morale within the team had improved. One staff member told us, “We worked really hard to bring things up to date. We feel we did quite well.” They also told us, “It’s been a lot of positive change people adapted to. We achieved a lot, lovely home, positive things, we strive to give them [people] everything they need.”

Staff spoke enthusiastically about projects they were working on with people living at the service, including jointly planning a garden refurbishment. They spoke with pride about recent improvements to the service, such as new living room sofas, which had been used to offer people a cinema-style experience, and the fitting of new flooring.

Staff confirmed good communication and said they were being kept informed about any changes. The service manager told us they felt supported by the provider. They reported having the time to complete the tasks which were part of their job role and finding it manageable to keep on top of the work since everything had been brought up to date.
 

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Since the last inspection, the management structure of the service had strengthened. The acting manager had been confirmed in a permanent post as service manager, and a locality manager was appointed, who was in the process of registering with the CQC. The locality manager was known to most of the staffing team, and they knew most of the people living at the service as well. Having worked for the provider for several years, they were well familiar with the policies, systems and processes. Their appointment was very well received by staff who described them as “well liked and respected”.

The management team, supported by the head of service, were proud of the achievements made since the last inspection and aware of the areas of improvement still required in the service.

Staff described the management team as approachable, available and supportive. They were able to raise concerns and share feedback and ideas and felt listened to. They described the staff meetings as an open forum for discussion and sharing opinions. One staff member told us, “Our voices are being heard. It’s nice to know things are happening.”

The head of servicetold us they visited the service most weeks. They also talked to us about past and planned visits from other provider representatives, including the nominated individual. They described the support from the provider as forthcoming and told us they were flexible, open to suggestions and have ensured a fair allocation of actions through their quality monitoring systems.

People’s relatives told us the service was well managed. One relative said: “We’ve got a good manager, [name], for Park View, (she is) there all the time, she is very good. Registered is 1 I’ve known for years, he knows [person] extremely well. He is very good, staff know him, a real asset to have him back in post, I’m very happy with it.”
 

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Actions from audits were now recorded on an electronic system. Records showed progress was monitored by different representatives of the provider.

The management team and provider continued to be proactive in improving the service.
We reviewed progress against the action plan to address staff training shortfalls identified at the previous inspection. The provider expressed confidence that compliance deadlines would be met, and the training matrix showed evidence of progress. The service manager confirmed that further work was required to ensure all staff were up to date with supervision and appraisals. We provided feedback on the need to assure agency staff training was in date and suitable.

Records indicated improvements have been made to the system to ensure safe recruitment practices are followed. However, as no new staff had been recruited since the last inspection, we were unable to assess their effectiveness.

At this inspection we found that the provider did not notify the CQC when DOLS applications had been approved, in line with regulations. The service manager started to address this during the inspection.

The provider had taken action to implement systems to monitor the quality of the service and we found no evidence that people had been at risk of harm. However, some of these were not fully embedded and were not always effective in monitoring the quality and safety of the service and to ensure records were properly and accurately maintained.

Further time was needed for the management team and provider to fully implement their action plans and for systems and processes to be fully embedded. We will check whether the provider's improvement plan has been effective in implementing and embedding all the improvements and the impact on the quality of care people received at our next inspection.
 

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They were in the process of encouraging creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They were starting to actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider developed and followed a recovery plan based on our findings at the last inspection and regular meetings were held to discuss progress.

The provider and management team were receptive of our feedback, which they took on board. They took actions to address some of the shortfalls identified during our inspection and brought forward the implementation of some actions they had planned.

The service manager told us they promoted a culture of positive risk taking and provided us with examples. They were working with staff in relation to this and had organised a workshop about restrictive practices.

The locality manager told us they were prioritising recruitment of permanent staff and demonstrated they were keen to work with people’s relatives to ensure least restrictive measures were used when supporting people stay safe.