Parkwood House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

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

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The service always assessed people's needs and used this information to plan care and support that reflected their individual circumstances and changing needs. Staff used ‘resident of the day’ processes and regular reviews to identify changes in people's health and wellbeing. Records showed people’s needs were regularly reviewed, although we identified this was not always effective in ensuring care plans were fully up to date with people’s needs. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they would review people’s care plans to ensure the information was up to date.

Care plans included risk assessments and guidance from health professionals, including dietetic recommendations where required. Relatives told us they were involved in care planning and reviews and were kept informed about changes. One relative said, “They review monthly, usually ring first and discuss what we know.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

People received support with nutrition and hydration, with regular food and fluid monitoring where required.

Relatives consistently told us people were offered drinks and snacks throughout the day and could choose where and with whom they ate. One relative told us, “They go overboard to see that no one dehydrates.”

We observed people receiving food and fluid in line with their IDDSI (International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative) needs.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Handover records demonstrated staff shared information about people's needs, changing risks and required support.

Relatives consistently told us staff communicated well and worked collaboratively with them and external professionals. One relative said, “We are a team or family.” Another told us, “We have a private physio come in and all the instructions are obeyed.”

People were supported to access health and social care services when needed and relatives confirmed they were involved in discussions about care and treatment. This joined-up approach helped ensure people experienced continuity of care and changes in their health and wellbeing were appropriately communicated and acted upon.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Care records evidenced monitoring of nutrition and hydration, and relatives told us drinks, snacks and meals were readily available.

People were supported to attend appointments and access healthcare professionals including GPs, dentists, opticians, physiotherapists and chiropodists. Relatives described positive outcomes from healthcare involvement and told us staff responded appropriately when people's health needs changed. One relative explained good care had supported significant healing of their family member's wound. People were also supported to access community facilities such as parks, cafés and local pubs where appropriate, helping them maintain social connections and wellbeing.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

Resident of the day reviews, care plan evaluations, food and fluid monitoring and regular communication between staff supported ongoing oversight of people's needs.

Relatives told us they were involved in reviews and were kept informed about changes to care. One relative said, “They review monthly.” The service continued to monitor people's health and wellbeing and respond when support needs changed.

We identified some routine monitoring needed improving, in relation to medication, creams and some continence needs were not always in line with people’s planned and assessed care and support needs. The provider could not be assured monitoring of people’s care helped ensure support remained effective.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Records demonstrated the service was working in line with mental capacity legislation and decision-making processes were documented.

Relatives consistently told us staff encouraged choice and involved people in decisions about daily routines, care and treatment. One relative said, “They encourage her to make choices,” while another told us, “Always,” when asked whether staff sought consent before providing support.

People were supported to choose when to get up, go to bed, participate in activities and spend time with others, where this was possible and safe.