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 inspection, this key question was rated good. At this inspection, the service has been rated requires improvement. This meant the service was not always consistently managed and well-led. The management team and the culture they created did not always promote high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the governance of the service.

This service scored 61 (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, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Although the building required significant 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 following the ethos of the organisation. One staff member told us, “The manager is firm, fair and friendly. I know at their first available opportunity they would speak to me. I know if I go to them about anything with a resident, they are on it straight away. If you’ve got a good team going you’ve half cracked it no matter what the building is like.”

The management team showed they were open to change. They actively welcomed feedback and guidance from partner agencies which would help to improve care quality.

The provider had an inclusive management team, who understood the importance of an empathetic approach, and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

People and their relatives gave positive feedback about the management team and their relationship with the staff team. One person said, “Yes, they have a great relationship with the staff.”

The staff team gave positive feedback about the registered manager. One staff member told us, “I do think we have a really good manager. We get regular supervision, policies to read and reread to make sure we understand. We have chance to read new residents records. We get support if something happens, for example, if someone dies. It’s emotional, as you get a really close bond to people. We are really lucky with the support we get. I am comfortable with our manager and will go into their office and talk to them. I know they would listen to me.”

The management team fostered a positive culture where people, relatives and staff felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The management team sought regular engagement with people and their representatives. Some people and their relatives spoke of not feeling fully engaged in the service via formal meetings, but all of the people we spoke with felt able to openly share their concerns. The management team regularly completed surveys and held frequent meetings with people and those who mattered to them. We saw suggestions from these had been reviewed by the management team to improve care quality. Where people had cited concerns around the building and the need for refurbishment, their views were fully considered in the provider’s service improvement plans.

One person said, “I would meet with the manager, they are nice and also the deputy is too. They help you with anything you want.” Another person said, “I would speak to the manager if I needed anything.”

Staff felt confident that their views and opinions were used in shaping the service. One staff member told us, “I have no concerns, it is a supportive culture here. I never feel bullied or disadvantaged. If there was something I was worried about, I would go to the management team.”

The management team 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.

Quality management systems were not fully effective. Although the provider was regularly involved with the service, their quality oversight of the service had not led to the required standards being met. We saw a lack of evidence at our assessment showing the provider had identified and mitigated the significant risks we identified. We were not fully assured the provider could make and sustain the required improvements at the service. Information was not being used effectively to monitor and improve the quality of care. Where the provider’s auditing processes had not identified the shortfalls observed during our inspection, the provider ensured they responded promptly and used the inspection feedback to drive improvement.

The management team had clear responsibilities, systems of accountability and governance. The management team acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The providers for Park House were fully committed to ensuring future development to enable high quality 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. The provider and management team ensured these actions were included in an overall service improvement plan.

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

People’s human rights were supported. The service had a focus on how they could enable people to be fully involved in life as part of their community; although some people told us this was limited by staffing availability. One relative, explained how their family member struggled in group settings, due to their diagnosis, told us, “The staff do ask them to go downstairs if they want, but sometimes they stay in their room as it’s chaotic.”

The management team understood there were areas where improvement was required, and they showed a robust proactive approach. The management team were open and responsive to ensuring improvement where any care quality had fallen below the provider’s expected standards.

Park House had an open culture, which embraced diversity and was inclusive. The management team led by example, and staff understood the importance of upholding the values of the organisation.

We spoke with the activity coordinator, who explained they were involved in compiling the service’s newsletter. There was a weekly plan and an overall monthly plan of activities, which were flexible to people’s needs. Activities included, painting, karaoke, bingo and a chair-based exercise class, along with trips out. The service also employed an entertainer with their activity budget. People could participate in ‘happy hour’ on a Friday, with a drinks and sweet trolley. The service hosted children from a local nursery. We saw the service also held summer and Christmas fairs to raise funds for further activities.

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. One staff member told us, “I have been supported with career progression with my NVQ. If I wanted to develop my career, I do feel I would get support for that.” Another staff member explained how they had received support with the new electronic care system being used at Park House, “Making that change after many years of writing notes was hard. I couldn’t have cracked it without the support of the management team and understanding me without judging.”