The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Flower Park Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

1 Rossington Street, Denaby Main Denaby, Doncaster, South Yorkshire, DN12 4TA (01709) 863327

Provided and run by:
Four Seasons Health Care (England) Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

1 September 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected Flower Park Care Home on 01 September 2015. The inspection was unannounced.

Flower Park Care Home provides personal and nursing care and is registered for 40 older people including those living with dementia. On the day of the inspection 35 people were receiving care services from the provider. The home had a manager who had been in post since January 2015. 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.

People had positive views about the staff and the support they were given for their particular care needs. Staff were kind and caring in their approach and people and staff interacted in a positive way. People told us they found the staff to be approachable and relaxed in manner and they could speak to them at any time.

Care and support was planned with people, and their care and support needs were clearly identified in their care records, although we found that the care records were not always reviewed with the expected frequency. Staff knew how to support people in the ways that were explained in their care records. People were encouraged to make choices about how they were supported in their daily lives.

People were given their medicines when they needed them. There was a system in place to

manage medicines in the home. However we found that there were omissions in the recording of administered medication.

Systems were in place so that the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were implemented when required. This legislation protects people who lack capacity to make informed decisions in their lives. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS applications are authorised to make sure that people in care homes, hospitals are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom.

Staff were properly supervised and supported in their work by the registered manager. The staff also took part in a variety of regular training in matters that were relevant to the needs of people at the home.

There was a system in place to ensure complaints were investigated and responded to properly. People knew how to make their views known and they had access to up to date information to help them to make a complaint.

People told us the registered manager was approachable and was always available if they needed to see them. The provider had ensured that regular checks on the quality of care and service where undertaken. When needed, actions were carried out to improve the service.

24 April 2014

During a routine inspection

Our inspection looked at our five questions; is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, speaking with the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff, and staff were given support and guidance to ensure that they cared for people safely. People benefited from a varied choice of nutritional foods. People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff had appropriate training and guidance had been followed. People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. Systems were in place for managers to monitor the quality of the service and make sure it was run safely.

Is the service effective?

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Care plans contained assessments of people's care and support needs. These assessments described the steps staff should take to ensure each person's needs were met. Staff received appropriate support to meet the needs of people living at the home. Audits and reviews took place to ensure that care was delivered in a way that met people's needs.

Is the service caring?

We observed that staff were caring and respectful towards people. Each care task we observed took place in a patient and kind manner. People spoke positively about their experience of receiving care at the home.

Is the service responsive?

Staff acted on people's needs and in accordance with their wishes. Where people needed specific support or care, we saw evidence that this was delivered in accordance with people's needs.

Is the service well-led?

There was a quality assurance system in place, where staff internal and external to the home carried out a quality monitoring programme. This was detailed, frequent and thorough. Staff we spoke with believed they were well led and had confidence in the management team.

8 July 2013

During a routine inspection

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements. One member of staff told us: 'It's important for me to gain people's consent in every aspect of care I provide.'

People told us that they were happy with the care they received. One person told us: 'The care here is excellent. You can't fault it.' Another person said: 'They look after me well. They really do care here and I'm lucky to be living here.' Therefore people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. The people we spoke with who lived at the home said they thought there were enough staff to provide care for them. A visiting relative said: "I think there should be more staff at busy times.'

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others.

People's personal records including were fit for purpose. We found care plans were accurate and effective in ensuring that people were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care.

27 November 2012

During a routine inspection

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. We spoke with four people who used the service. All those we spoke with said that information was given and consent was sought by staff before any care, support or activity was undertaken.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. People told us that they were happy with the care they received. One person said "its lovely here" another person said "I like it here, staff are always there for me".

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. We saw that all areas of the home were clean and well maintained.

People who use the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises. The provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. Each staff file contained evidence that the provider carried out background checks on staff before they commenced work.

There was an effective complaints system available.Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.

7 February 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an unannounced inspection in November 2011. As part of our follow up inspection we toured the building with the manager and met all of the people who lived at the service. We took the opportunity and spoke with as many people as possible. People said that they liked the service and the staff who worked there. They said staff were friendly and worked hard. They all recognised the manager and knew her by name. One relative made positive remarks about the handyperson. They said nothing was too much trouble and he was always obliging. People also said since the staffing had been increased care workers had time to talk with them and deliver care without having to rush. They also commented that the increase in staffing levels would be maintained and not a short term initiative following the CQC inspection.

29 November 2011

During a routine inspection

People said that they liked living at Flower Park because it was near where they used to live. When they inquired about local care services they had good reports from relatives about this service.

One person said, 'A service is as good as the manager' and that there had not been a permanent manager for sometime and this has been difficult for them.

A relative said that the staff members working at the service were always polite helpful and most welcoming. They often offered them cups of tea when they visited and did not feel they were in the way.