Parkview Care Home

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

This service scored 68 (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.

The registered manager had sought people’s views and wishes about the care they were receiving and built their support around this, delicately balancing progression towards people’s goals whilst showing understanding of people’s specific conditions. For example, people had been supported to make steps towards independence in their daily life skills at a rate they were comfortable with. A person said, “It’s up to me how live, I’m happy with how they support me.” We saw examples of people’s preferences abound how they identify and like to be addressed being respected with people’s pronouns clearly communicated.

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.

Whilst people expressed general satisfaction with their health outcomes, we saw an example where a person had not been actively supported to pursue professional input for their specific health condition. Care documents did not contain detailed guidance needed for staff to understand the persons health journey and support the person to make the progress with their specific health goal. This had the potential to impact their outcomes and wellbeing. The provider had looked for other ways to support the person’s goals but had not demonstrated they had connected the person with services supporting their specific needs.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information.

Information the provider gave people was sometimes out of date and in accurate, for example a food menu on display in the dining area showed meals which did not reflect the current choices on offer. People told us the menu had been out of date for a number of months. Staff were informing people of meal choices using a separate document; however, this had the potential to cause confusion. Another example of information for people not being up to date, was an information board in a communal area had a bus stop timetable people used to plan their journeys and a newsletter which was dated 2023. Guidance for staff to help provide people with consistent support, did not always contain up to date information reflecting their current needs, routines and progression with personal goals. This showed information provided to people and staff was not always reviewed, accurate and up to date. People were being supported by staff to retain information given by health professionals during appointments, who facilitated the recording of notes, helping capture details to inform changes in people’s needs. Whilst these details were not always reflected in people’s care documents, staff providing people support were aware of their current needs.

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.

The provider had channels available for people to give feedback about their experience reinforced by a complaints policy. We saw evidence people had raised complaints, and these had been investigated by the registered manager. A person told us, “I don’t have any complaints about staff or the home. But if I did, I’m happy to speak with staff, they would help me.” Relatives of people expressed they were happy with the providers communication. A relative said, “I don’t have any complaints and are very happy with [registered managers name] and all the staff, If I did, I am confident they would listen.” A person told us staff listened to them about how they wanted to receive support, explaining the different levels of support they have to attend certain health appointments and how this can change following the person’s feedback.

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

People received support from staff to access healthcare through regular on-site GP visits, local surgeries, and assistance with scheduling and attending specific health appointments. People had received foot care within the service from professionals, supporting them to maintain their health and mobility.

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’s protected characteristics were understood and incorporated into their support. For example, how people identified and chose to be addressed including their chosen pronouns was contained in their care documents, known and respected by staff providing support. People told us they felt listened to and were supported by staff who cared about their experience. A person said, “They know what I want help with and I have made progress with my goal of going out more.” A staff member said, “We have care plans to follow with people’s support needs in them, they could be more detailed, but we talk to people and get to know their needs better that way because its straight from them.”

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.

Whilst people were not receiving end of life care at the time of our assessment, people had been supported to plan for future health appointments. For example, a person who wanted to receive specific health treatment around their goals was being supported to take steps towards this.