Parkwood House

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 outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Most care plans reflected people’s individual needs, wishes and routines, and relatives told us they were involved in creating and reviewing care plans.

People and relatives consistently said staff knew them well and understood their likes, dislikes and personal histories. Feedback showed people were supported to make everyday decisions.

Observations and feedback showed staff provided care in a personalised way and recognised people as individuals. We saw lounge areas decorated in a personal way, with people’s daily activities around them, for example photos, knitting and communication devices.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Relatives told us they were kept informed about changes in care and treatment and staff communicated promptly when concerns arose. One relative said, “If I mention something it is dealt with quickly.”

Records showed staff worked with healthcare professionals including GPs, physiotherapists, district nurses and other specialists to support people’s wellbeing and continuity of care. People were supported to attend appointments and access external services when required. Feedback from relatives was consistently positive about the responsiveness of the service and the support provided when people’s needs changed.

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

Relatives told us staff communicated well and kept them informed about care, treatment and any significant changes. One relative described the service as “good communicators,” while another said staff would “phone whatever time it is” if there was an important update. Care plan reviews and regular discussions helped ensure people and their representatives understood care decisions and were able to contribute to them. Feedback indicated people’s communication needs were recognised and supported, helping them remain involved in their care and support.

The registered manager understood the accessible information standards and spoke about examples of providing information in different formats when required. Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says people should get the support they need in relation to communication.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns and provide feedback. Comments included, “No difficulty at all” and “I can speak to any of them, I trust them.”

The provider held meetings, sent surveys, provided an electronic feedback form at the point people, relatives and professionals signed out of the building. They encouraged informal feedback and the registered manager told us of example where they consistently reflected on feedback and practise. Relatives told us meetings were very helpful.

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

Relatives told us people could access healthcare professionals, including chiropodists, hairdressers, opticians and GPs when required. Staff helped arrange appointments and supported people to attend where needed. One relative said, “The home sorts these out,” while another confirmed health professionals were available when required. People and relatives also said they could provide feedback and access support without barriers from the service itself.

The registered manager told us about a situation for a person where the person’s 1-1 hours were going to be reduced rapidly and they recognised this would cause the person distress. The registered manager worked with professionals to ensure care supported the person’s care and wellbeing needs.

We saw examples of referrals being made to healthcare professionals and evidence of coordinated working with specialist services.

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.

Relatives consistently told us people’s cultural, religious and social needs were respected and supported. People were able to access activities, community opportunities and social events suited to their interests. Examples included religious services, community outings, visits to local parks and cafés, and participation in the home’s men’s club. Comments included, “we have communion together in the service”, and “there is a Christian service every week”. People and relatives said staff understood them well and adapted support to reflect their circumstances and preferences. Most relatives reported no barriers to receiving care or support and felt people were treated fairly and as individuals.

The provider had implemented the 'Eden Alternative' which guided the philosophy of care within the service. This was based on 10 principles to provide guidance on how to support people to live meaningful lives. It had created an environment, which reduced feelings of loneliness, helplessness, and boredom, person centred relationships, people's engagement in meaningful activities, and continued community engagement. The provider had purchased a car to provide people with the opportunity of going out. The manager and staff knew how important people’s lift history was to ensure meaningful engagement and minimise distress. This was a demonstration of the Eden Alternative philosophy of care and ensuring people living in the service have a sense of community and inclusion.

One relative told us they regularly accompanied their loved one to the off-site café to visit their husband. As the person was living with dementia, they sometimes believed they were employed at the service and reliving aspects of their past. Staff demonstrated a person-centred approach by recognising this experience and supporting the person to take planned breaks in the café. Presenting these visits as breaks from their "shift" helped the person feel comfortable and reassured, enabling them to maintain an important family relationship while reducing the likelihood of distress. This approach promoted the person's emotional wellbeing, dignity, and connection with those who mattered most to them.

Feedback, observations and care records demonstrated people were supported to experience care in a way that recognised their unique needs and backgrounds.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The service always involved people and those important to them in planning and reviewing future care and support needs. Relatives told us they were involved in care planning processes and regular reviews. One relative told us staff reviewed care plans monthly and discussed any proposed changes beforehand. People and relatives generally felt informed about care and treatment and understood how plans would support future needs.

Peoples care plans considered end-of-life needs and had structured planning in relation to future clinical, emotional, and environmental needs.