Park House

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 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 well managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, diversity and inclusion and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Although the building was still undergoing renovation to ensure it met people’s needs and was a safe place to live, we found a positive care culture had been embedded by the management team. The shared vision at Park House ensured staff understood the importance of upholding the ethos of the organisation.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team. One person said, “If they are passing, they will say hello, but I know they are so busy at the moment. I know they’d listen if I raised anything or was worried.” A relative told us, “The manager is lovely and very easy to talk with.”

The management team showed an open and transparent approach. They actively welcomed feedback and guidance from partner agencies which would help to improve care quality.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, diversity and inclusion and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Although the building was still undergoing renovation to ensure it met people’s needs and was a safe place to live, we found a positive care culture had been embedded by the management team. The shared vision at Park House ensured staff understood the importance of upholding the ethos of the organisation.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team. One person said, “If they are passing, they will say hello, but I know they are so busy at the moment. I know they’d listen if I raised anything or was worried.” A relative told us, “The manager is lovely and very easy to talk with.”

The management team showed an open and transparent approach. They actively welcomed feedback and guidance from partner agencies which would help to improve care quality.

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

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 service recognised the skills of the staff team and supported internal progression. The service recruited internationally as well as locally and championed diversity in their workforce, so as a service, the staff team were better placed to meet people’s varied needs.

The provider did not always have clear accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes. We did find the management team ensured information was shared promptly and securely with others when appropriate.

Quality management systems at Park House were not fully effective. We were assured the provider could make and sustain the required improvements at the service. However, in some areas of the service, this progress was slow and was not fully embedded sufficiently to provide assurance.

Information was not always being used effectively to monitor and improve the quality of care. For example, where accident analysis records showed a breakdown of time of day, location, why the incident occurred and actions taken, there was limited information recorded on any lessons learned. We did see that appropriate action had been taken, for example, referring people on to an external team for review of falls risk or of increased observations being carried out. Where the management auditing processes had shortfalls, the management team ensured they responded promptly and used the inspection feedback to drive improvement. We found the management team to be open and transparent, and information was shared promptly and securely with others when appropriate.

The safeguarding log showed evidence of analysis, lessons being learned and of these being shared with the staff team. This information included any contributing factors and actions taken. Staff had been asked to sign the records, to say they had reviewed these documents.

The providers for Park House were fully committed to ensuring the refurbishment was completed, to enable quality improvements in the standards of care. They gave their full assurance to the set timescales for improvements and ensured they were accountable. We will review their actions taken at our next inspection.

The management team had regular operations meetings, following which, required actions were detailed and allocated amongst the team. The provider and management team ensured these actions were incorporated into the overall service improvement plan.

The provider did not always have clear accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes. We did find the management team ensured information was shared promptly and securely with others when appropriate.

Quality management systems at Park House were not fully effective. We were assured the provider could make and sustain the required improvements at the service. However, in some areas of the service, this progress was slow and was not fully embedded sufficiently to provide assurance.

Information was not always being used effectively to monitor and improve the quality of care. For example, where accident analysis records showed a breakdown of time of day, location, why the incident occurred and actions taken, there was limited information recorded on any lessons learned. We did see that appropriate action had been taken, for example, referring people on to an external team for review of falls risk or of increased observations being carried out. Where the management auditing processes had shortfalls, the management team ensured they responded promptly and used the inspection feedback to drive improvement. We found the management team to be open and transparent, and information was shared promptly and securely with others when appropriate.

The safeguarding log showed evidence of analysis, lessons being learned and of these being shared with the staff team. This information included any contributing factors and actions taken. Staff had been asked to sign the records, to say they had reviewed these documents.

The providers for Park House were fully committed to ensuring the refurbishment was completed, to enable quality improvements in the standards of care. They gave their full assurance to the set timescales for improvements and ensured they were accountable. We will review their actions taken at our next inspection.

The management team had regular operations meetings, following which, required actions were detailed and allocated amongst the team. The provider and management team ensured these actions were incorporated into the overall service improvement plan.

The management team focused on learning and improvement across the organisation. They encouraged the delivery of positive outcomes and quality of life for people.

Themes from any complaints had been analysed by the management team to look for themes and trends. Actions taken by the service included: sharing of these reviews during team meetings with staff for them to understand the complaints. Lessons learned showed where the service could improve. We saw the management team had implemented additional training to reduce the likelihood of future complaints, their responses included relevant documentation reviews.

Staff we spoke with felt valued and supported by the management team, and able to progress in their chosen career. Staff had received training to assist them with the recent migration onto the electronic care planning and medicines administration systems.

Staff were encouraged to complete extra training which would enable them to support people living with specific identified needs. For example, learning disability and oral health training.