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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People and their relatives were involved in the assessment process, as well as any relevant health and social care professionals. This enabled staff to gather clear information about people’s support needs and how they wished to be supported.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff completed regular training to ensure the support they provided to people was in line with best practice guidance.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The staff team worked well together to provide consistency of care in the service and when supporting people in the community. There were regular staff meetings, handovers and team communication channels to ensure effective sharing of information. Staff told us there was good team working. Staff commented; “Team working is very strong. We communicate well, share information, and work together to ensure people receive consistent, person-centred support.” And, “Team working is excellent. We support each other, communicate well, and work together in the best interests of the people we support.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported people to attend medical appointments and accompanied them to regular check-ups, for example, dental appointments. People received their regular learning disability review with their local learning disability team, and staff supported people to attend hospital appointments where required.

Staff also supported people to life healthier lives through remaining active and eating a balanced diet suitable to their needs. Staff provided any support required with meal planning and meal preparation.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People had regular meetings with their allocated key workers who reviewed their progress against agreed goals and outcomes people wished to achieve. One relative told us, “Since [their family member] has been under the care with [the registered manager] they have come on leaps and bounds.” Relatives told us their family members were happy and settled at the service and this had enabled them to focus on skill development and developing their independence.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care. Staff were aware of and worked in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. However, we found differing levels of detail in people’s care records about their capacity to make decisions. Some people’s records provided detailed information about what areas of their care they were able to understand and consent to, and where they didn’t have capacity who made this decision on their behalf. Other people’s records contained less detail, and it was unclear what elements of their care they were able to consent to. Nevertheless, staff involved people as much as they could in day-to-day decisions and respected their choices.

The registered manager took on board our feedback and assured us they would update their records to ensure clarity of information.