Park House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. The provider was previously in breach of legal regulations in this key question. This related to the need for consent. The provider had made enough improvements and the service was no longer in breach of the legal regulations.

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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health and care needs. Since the previous assessment the provider had moved onto an electronic care plan system. This ensured all care plans were reviewed, however, there was not always evidence people were involved in their care planning. One relative told us, “Last week I went right through the whole care plan.” There was contradictory information within one person’s care plan, however, upon discussion with the manger this was rectified. Care plans were personalised and contained enough information to ensure staff were aware of people’s needs. There was a summary sheet on the system that contained all key information which provided an oversight of the person. There was evidence when a person’s needs changed their care plan was updated to reflect the needs of this person. We observed staff to know people well.

Clinical tools such as malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) were in place to assess people's needs. We identified records in relation to people’s dietary needs were not always consistent, the record held in the kitchen did not always correspond with information held in care plans. This was shared with the manager who rectified this immediately. However, staff knew people’s dietary needs and ensured meals served were the correct modification.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Feedback received from partner agencies was positive, with one professional stating, “This staff team is now passionate about their service and really believe in what they are doing it has been an absolute pleasure working with them.” One staff member we spoke with said, “We [staff] are all pulling together as a team more now.” Another staff member told us, “There’s been a change in staff attitude, the morale has improved.” Communication systems were in place to ensure information was shared, this included handover records, team meetings and supervision. Information about a person’s healthcare needs including medication were held within a hospital passport, should a person require hospital admission.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. People had access to a regular GP who visited the service weekly. If medical attention was required outside of this regular visit, it was easily available. Staff were confident in reporting any changes about a person’s needs to the nurse in charge who would then in turn share with the manager. This ensured people received the support they required to meet their needs. Relatives had no concerns regarding their loved one’s needs being met, one relative we spoke with said, “Communication is great, it’s improved, feel like I can leave [person] now and go on holiday.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. The provider employed activity co-ordinators who promoted wellbeing and independence. One staff member identified people enjoyed music and always appeared more settled after this activity, therefore, a choir was devised. People’s outcomes were recorded within care plans and were reviewed at least monthly. Care plan audits were undertaken, and outcomes were reviewed to ensure they were being met. The manager told us they would visit over the weekend to be able to capture relatives feedback for those relatives that could only visit during the weekend. The manager informed us, “Knowing your resident is really important, things can change quickly.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People told us they received support when they requested it, one person said, “If I want a shower, I can have one, I will always ask.” Mental capacity assessments and best interest meetings were recorded to ensure decisions were made in a person’s best interest, although some of them lack detailed information. We observed staff gaining consent before providing support.