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 ‘Good’. At this assessment the rating has remained ‘Good’.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 79 (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, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s care plans were regularly checked and reviewed to make sure their care plans were accurate and up to date. Relatives told us they were invited to attend regular reviews for their family member. Comments included, “I am always invited to meetings to review care plans, and I have my say and I am listened to” and “I am sent the care plan before the review meeting, so I can read it at my pace and make comments to any changes, which are acted upon after the review meeting.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment 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 received specific training on how to support people who have a learning disability and/or are autistic. This training helps staff provide safe and effective care in line with current legislation.

People indicated they were happy with the meals provided and the support provided by staff for their nutritional needs to be met. Where possible, people were given the opportunity to participate with all aspects of meal planning and preparation. People received enough food and drink of their choice throughout the day. The nutritional needs of people were identified and where people who used the service were at nutritional risk, referrals to a healthcare professional, such as Dietician and Speech and Language Therapist [SALT], had been made and specific guidance followed by staff.

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.

Information demonstrated the service worked with others, for example, the Local Authority, healthcare professionals and services to support people’s ongoing care provision. Staff told us they had the information they needed to support people. The registered manager and staff confirmed daily handovers took place. Effective staff handovers ensure continuity of care, facilitate the transfer of essential information, details staff responsibilities and accountability between shifts, allowing staff to be well-informed about each person’s needs and any relevant updates.

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

People were supported exceptionally well to live healthier lives, access healthcare services and support. A person using the service was very reluctant to have a flu vaccination as they were anxious and fearful about the procedure. To support the person using the service, staff provided easy read information, pictures and other visual aids, promoted the use of videos and role-play. As part of this approach, accompanying staff agreed to be vaccinated in front of the person so they could see the process first hand. This focused, person-centred approach ensured the person fully maximised choice and control to make an informed decision about their health, resulting in them receiving the flu vaccination.

The service recognised the importance of people having better physical health and wellbeing. People were supported to take part in physical exercise, for example, to cycle, walk and/or go swimming. People were also supported to make healthier food choices and diets.

Staff sought advice and support at the earliest opportunity and made timely referrals where appropriate to healthcare professionals and services. Care records demonstrated people's healthcare needs were recorded, including evidence of staff interventions and the outcomes of healthcare appointments. People received an annual health check, had a health action plan, and had a hospital passport. The latter refers to if people are admitted to hospital, this document is used to provide hospital staff with important information about the person.

Relatives confirmed they were kept informed of their member of family's healthcare needs and the outcome of any healthcare appointments.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment 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 were actively encouraged to take part in meaningful social activities of their choosing, and which met their needs. For example, people were able to enjoy walking in the local park, cycling, swimming, attendance at college or home-based creative activities. A person using the service attended work experience at a local day centre. These opportunities help reduce social isolation, enhance social skills, and support better mental health by fostering a sense of belonging and inclusion. A relative told us, “It’s as if they [staff] knew what my family member would like to do. The staff team know that depending on my family member’s mood, will depend on what activities they can do. They [staff] don’t offer an activity that my family member will not be able to do, this helps keep them relaxed.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA] provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to make particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS].

Staff demonstrated sufficient knowledge and understanding of the key requirements of the MCA and how this affected people using the service. We found the service was fully working within the principles of the MCA. Staff understood the need to gain consent from people for care and to encourage people to make decisions for themselves wherever possible. People were given a choice of drinks and meals; and given the opportunity to participate in meaningful activities of their choosing and preference.

Assessments relating to people’s capacity were completed and recorded. Proper record-keeping for both the capacity assessment and the care plan is essential to demonstrate compliance with the principles of the MCA. Capacity assessments are important so as to understand a person’s ability to make decisions, whether these are day-to-day or more complex.

Legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty and had been applied for in a timely manner. Where people had an authorised DoLS order in place with conditions imposed, there was evidence to demonstrate these had been reviewed and actioned to ensure compliance with the Mental Capacity Act.