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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 were at the centre of their care choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received care and support that met their needs. A relative told us, “They cater for what [their family member] needs.” Staff were allocated as key workers to support people and took a lead role in reviewing their needs and liaising with others should these needs change. People were central to their care, and a flexible service was provided that was able to meet those care needs.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff advocated for people as and when required to ensure they received joined up care. Staff worked with people’s social worker, and health professionals as required, to ensure continuity of care across health and social care services.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff were aware of how people communicated. This included using verbal and non-verbal communication methods. People were provided with information in differing formats depending on their needs, this included using pictorial exchange communication systems and translation services. A staff member said, “I adapt my communication to each person’s needs, using clear language or alternative methods if required.” One relative told us their family member’s communication, specifically use of verbal communication, had improved since working with the staff at Reon care.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Information was available in the service user guide about how to raise concerns should they arise. A complaints policy was in place. We saw only one complaint had been received since the service registered with CQC and this was dealt with appropriately. The relatives we spoke with told us that they had not needed to make a complaint. They told us they worked well with the staff and the registered manager, and any suggestions made were implemented promptly.

The provider made sure that people could access the care and support they needed when they needed it.

There was equal and fair access to the service. Equality and diversity policies were in place to ensure people were protected from discrimination and staff were respectful of people’s protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care and support in response to this.

Staff asked people about their preferred names, pronouns and their religious and cultural preferences so that care and support could be delivered in line with their wishes and preferences. Staff were respectful of people’s individual differences. For one person’s care, information in their care records about their cultural needs lacked detail. The registered manager took on board this feedback and assured us the records would be updated.

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.

At the time of our assessment no-one was nearing the end of their life. However, processes were in place if people required this level of support and staff had completed training in end-of-life care.