Park House

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The provider was previously in breach of legal regulations in this key question. This related to person-centred care. The provider has 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.

We did not always see evidence people were involved in the devising of their care plans. One person told us, “I think I have a care plan, I am not sure.” Some people’s communication care plans lacked detail or had not been fully completed. We reviewed one person’s care plan whose care plan stated they could not verbally communicate. There was no information on how best to support this person to communicate their needs or wishes.

We observed person centred interactions, staff knew people’s likes and dislikes. People’s life histories were captured within care plans.

The provider ensured people had access to the advocacy service should they require it.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people. Care was joined up; relevant referrals were made to external professionals when required. Although the provider did use agency staff, this number had significantly reduced. The provider ensured continuity of care by utilising its own internal agency company. There were systems in place which ensured referrals were made to external professionals when required. Staff were able to explain the process they would follow if they identified a person required support. This included reporting it to the nurse in charge. The manager informed us they would then have oversight of referrals. Daily staff meetings ensured information was shared.

The provider supplied easy read versions of the service user guide and informed us they would adapt forms to meet the needs of staff or people should they require it. There was signage in the service to orientate people to areas of the home however, this needed further development as some rooms did not have names or pictures to indicate what they were. The provider had already identified this and were implementing steps to improve this.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We saw evidence meetings were held with staff, relatives and people. A relative informed us, “There is a relative meeting every 1st Wednesday in the day and in the evening.” Staff told us they were encouraged to provide feedback and felt listened too. One staff member told us, “Manager introduced staff meetings, we feel listened to, they [manager] also introduced ‘drop ins’ so we can always go to them.” People and relatives told us they could raise a concern if they needed, comments included, “I will ask management, I have no issues speaking to them,” “I could raise a concern if I needed too.” There was a complaints policy in place. There was a suggestion box in place in the foyer which promoted feedback.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider ensured people had adapted aids should they require them; this included the use of plate guards and adapted cutlery. We observed people utilising plate guards during mealtimes, this promoted independence.

We were informed a person living in the service, who was unable to effectively communicate, was having frequent falls. Although there were never any injuries sustained, the person was always found on their pillow. The staff identified this person may not like the mattress, a new mattress was sourced, and this person has not fallen since.

The provider ensured referral to the advocacy service were submitted when required. One person had regular visits from the advocacy service; the advocate was involved in all best interest decisions. There was an equality, diversity and inclusion policy in place and staff knew how to access this. All care staff completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion. People who required the use of hearing aids or glasses received these.

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. We reviewed feedback provided by a relative of a person who had passed away they stated, “Their end-of-life care was exceptional. The staff at the home (including non-care staff) were attentive. Nursing staff were responsive to their changes in need as they occurred, and they were treated with dignity throughout.” People had end of life care plans in place. The provider followed the 6 steps pathway to ensure people received consistent high standard of holistic care when they were nearing end of life. Care plans recorded when a person had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) in place. All care staff had a received training in end-of-life care.