Green Park Care Home

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 service scored 63 (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 assessed and reviewed people’s health and care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People were involved in the assessment of their needs, and the support provided maximised their involvement.

Care planning took place via the PCS system. Whilst records were detailed and person centred there were some inconsistencies with records. For example, a person’s diet was recorded in different sections of the care file referencing a different diet to be provided. There were inconsistent meal charts for a person as to how meals were to be prepared, with differing textures, which could lead to confusion over the correct texture and place the person at risk.

Systems were in place to ensure assessments are up to date, accurate and for staff to be aware of them. People were involved in planning for the future, including their preferences and aspirations. Audits of care plans were completed and a resident of the day review of care plans had commenced however further work was required to ensure care plans were accurate and up to date.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

The PCS system and accessibility at times meant care entries were recorded at incorrect times, this proved problematic when reviewing and assessing people as at times for example, there would be repetition or conflicting entries. It also failed to give a true reflection of care given for example, for a person whose fluids were all recorded at the same time rather than accurate times over a set period. This issue was something the provider was aware of and were taking action to address. Other areas of improvement identified included the recording of blood glucose levels for people. This varied amongst the different units and proved difficult to review for accuracy and efficiency.

Staff spoken with understood people’s assessed needs and confirmed they were kept up to date with any changes. Feedback from relatives was positive and one relative stated, “Staff are confident and competent when delivering care.”

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.

Systems in place to share information amongst the staffing teams were good. Handover systems with records were completed daily and ward rounds took place chaired by clinical leaders. Information was then passed to specific teams to identify risk. There was a daily flash meeting with all heads of departments, which shared information and intelligence from the start of the shift.

The provider received weekly visits from an ‘Enhanced Care Home Support team’. Feedback from the team reflected how responsive the staff team were and how they worked well together to meet the needs of people.

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.

People had access to a GP and other health and social care professionals as required in support of their health and well-being. Referrals were completed to the appropriate professionals as and when required for example, speech and language therapists, dieticians, district nurses and mental health teams. Staff monitored people’s health conditions and acted if people became unwell.

Healthy meal options were made available for people and seasonal menus. There was mixed feedback on meals from relatives’ comments included, “Yes the food excellent and my relative member eats everything” and “The food has gone down in quality used to be much better.”

People were supported with physical activity through the service’s comprehensive activity calendar. For example, the ‘Music in Mind entertainers’ who encourage physical stimulation and emotional expression through music. The monthly ‘good news story’ evidenced different events taking place regularly offering activities to stimulate physical activity for people.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff were aware of people’s needs and systems were in place to monitor clinical outcomes, this included monitoring people’s weight, food and drink using the PCS system. However, there were inconsistencies with the recordings, and the system was not always accurate to evidence when care was given and when it was missed. We fed this back to the manager who was responsive to find a solution to this.

Relatives were confident in how to raise concerns or complaints. Feedback included, “Yes I would just go see who is in charge and speak to them, but I’ve had no concerns.”

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

Observations evidenced people were given choices and staff obtained consent prior to support being delivered. Relatives supported this and feedback included, “Yes, they talk through everything with my family member.”

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] and understood people’s views and wishes were to be taken into account when their care was planned and delivered. Systems were in place to ensure DoLS were re-applied for where appropriate. Mental capacity and best interest assessments were completed in line with The Mental Capacity Act 2005. However, we did identify the need for a best interest assessment for a person whose needs had changed.