Parkview Care Home

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 changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 71 (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.

The provider’s established values were shared with leaders and staff directly during their induction and supervision, who spoke about what mattered to them in their roles supporting people. A staff member said, “Each person we support is different, but we always promote independence and dignity.” People were supported to express themselves and be proud of their choices. For example, leaders and staff had embraced people’s choices around their identity promoting an open culture of self-expression in which people felt included these choices had been clearly communicated within the team meaning people were addressed in line with their preferences.

The registered manager had created an open culture where staff felt comfortable raising issues, they were confident would be addressed. Staff comments included, “Culture here is good, I really love the job very glad to be working here.” And “The culture here is quite close and friendly. We have had disagreements in the team but [registered manager name] is trying to resolve them.”

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.

The provider had structured leadership roles, staff were supervised by the registered manager who was supported by a deputy manager. Leaders and staff described the provider as supportive and friendly. A staff member said, “The owners are approachable and there if you need them.” Staff, people and their relatives spoke positively about the leadership of the service. A person said, “[Registered managers name] is nice and there if I need her.” A staff member said, “The managers are brilliant, they treat us fairly and they’re supportive. Whilst a relative told us, “[Loved one’s name] tells us they’re very happy with the managers and staff and we haven’t had any issues, so we are very happy too.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff gave feedback about feeling empowered to raise issues by the registered manager and provider. The registered manager held team meetings for staff, in which we saw staff raising concerns and voicing ideas around how to resolve them. A staff member said, “I raised an issue and [registered manager name] is doing something about it. Since she has been here things are getting better because she listens to us.” People and staff could raise issues and share concerns using the providers channels which included a complaints procedure. We saw people had utilised the complains procedure and evidence people’s complaints had been investigated. People told us they felt confident raising concerns through staff support. A person said, “I trust the staff who can help me if I have any issues.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The registered manager had recruited a culturally diverse staff team in line with the providers recruitment policy. Staff told us they felt valued by a registered manager, who sought their views when changes were made in the service. Comments from staff included, “I would say since [registered managers name] has been here, overall, I have seen a big improvement in the service and how the team is managed.” And “We have team meetings; I have had the opportunity to discuss ideas and feel included in the team.”

The provider had governance processes in place, which were mostly effective, however there were examples where care records had not always been maintained accurately. They did not always act on the best information about risk.

The registered manager had a system in place to check the quality-of-care delivery people experienced and health and safety within the service. These included audits of people care documents and the environment. The provider added additional oversight of quality by completing their own audits of the registered managers work, performance and environment. Whilst we saw these were being routinely completed, with areas requiring improvements identified, and action plans made to address shortfalls and track progress. We found an instance where an action had been signed off without the necessary changes made. For example, following a change to a person’s medication the providers audit had identified the change had not been recorded in the persons relevant care documents. Subsequent checks had marked this as completed however the change of medication had been recorded as a review note with the main care document remaining unchanged. We raised this with the registered manager who reviewed and updated the persons care document. We identified other areas in which the registered manager and provider checks had failed to identify people’s care documents and risk assessments in place to give staff effective guidance to follow contained outdated and limited information, we raised this with the registered manager who addressed the concerns adding additional detail to people’s documents.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Leaders and staff had built professional relationships with other services including GP surgeries, dentists and chiropodists. This supported people to maintain and make improvements in their general health and specific health conditions. A person said, “I can get to the GP surgery on my own but like to have staff support with dentist appointments.” Professionals gave feedback about their experience working with leaders and staff. Comments included, “I have been visiting Parkview in my professional role for the past couple of years. During that time, the residents I’ve treated have consistently seemed happy, settled and cared for. I’ve observed positive and respectful relationships between staff and residents.” And “When I work with the manager or deputy manager, they give me a full and detailed handover for all the residents. They both have very good clinical knowledge and work holistically with patient centred care being the aim.”

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

The provider had used information from past regulatory assessments to make improvements; this included the general maintenance of the building. The registered manager sourced additional face to face training helping to provide staff with the knowledge needed to improve their skills, who spoke about the positive effect the additional training had on their confidence and ability to deliver people’s care. A staff member said, “I find the in-person training really helpful, it matches my style of learning.” The registered manager looked for ways to reduce medication errors, adding an additional daily medication audit for staff to complete. This helped identify errors quickly and lowered risks related to medication administration for people.