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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plans covered all aspects of a person's individual care and support needs, focussing on the care and support to be delivered by staff. The impact of this ensured the care provided for the person using the service was personalised, goal oriented, enabling staff to focus on their personal likes, dislikes and preferences. Care plans were reviewed and updated at regular intervals or as people’s needs changed to ensure the information remained relevant and current.

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.

When people required specialist input from healthcare professionals it was obtained and the service acted on instructions from them to ensure appropriate care provision and continuity of care. People received care from the same core group of staff as several members of staff had been employed at the service for some considerable time.

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

People's communication care plans reflected their preferred method of communication. For example, the care plan for 1 person recorded they could verbally communicate but also used visual aids and objects of reference. An 'object of reference' is used to represent an item, activity or place as a means of communication. Another person’s care plan referred to them using Makaton or Picture Exchange Communication System [PECS] to effectively communicate. The latter isa communication aid that uses pictures to teach expressive communication skills to individuals who have difficulty with speech, often those who are autistic. Makaton is a language programme designed to provide a means of communication to individuals who find it difficult to verbally communicate. Staff understood people’s different communication needs and how to effectively communicate with them.

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

The registered manager told us people who used the service, relatives and staff were encouraged to share feedback about the quality of the service provided, and what it was like to work at Park House. Annual quality assurance surveys had been forwarded to relatives, inviting them to provide feedback and suggestions for improvement in 2025. Staff employed at the service had sought the views of people who use the service in communicating their feelings, ideas, and concerns. The registered manager was advised to consider an independent person or advocate, to ensure the feedback gained going forward was objective.

Arrangements were in place to record, investigate and respond to any complaints raised with the service. People’s relatives were confident about speaking up and raising any concerns. A relative told us, “I would say I have never had a reason to raise a complaint. Sometimes I have a little gripe and no sooner have I said something, it is sorted.” Another relative told us, “The staff team respond to issues raised very well and they are sorted very quickly. There is no fuss.” Relatives told us communication between them and the service was good.

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

Discussions with relatives implied they had not experienced discrimination or inequality. Information available demonstrated people using the service were able to access services, including a range of external healthcare services and professionals throughout the day, including out of normal hours and in an emergency.

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

The provider and registered manager understood the impact inequality could pose on people using the service. The service was flexible with their approach and support to ensure people had an experience which was fair and just. The staff worked with other professionals to make sure they understood and met people’s individual needs.

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.

End of life care plans for people were recorded and covered the spiritual, psychological, social and physical aspects of end-of-life care required to ensure the individual received a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death. Where appropriate, ‘Do Not Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation’ [DNACPR] orders were recorded. The registered manager told us they would work in partnership with other professionals, such as the local palliative care team to ensure people received appropriate end of life care. Staff had completed end of life care training.