Green Park Care Home

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 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.

The provider had systems in place to ensure people were involved in planning and reviewing their support as much as they were able and wanted to be. Relatives confirmed they were involved in reviews and were kept up to date of any changes.

People’s bedrooms were person centred with items of furniture and personal pictures and other items. We observed staff using a person-centred approach with regards to activities for people who experienced periods of anxiety or distress. Staff were aware of people’s triggers and knew how to try and de-escalate situations.

Meetings took place to ensure all people were provided with the opportunity to share their views to ensure the care was person-centred.

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.

The provider worked with visiting professionals and healthcare partners to ensure people received good care. Feedback from professionals evidenced the provider was reactive to people’s needs and responsive at identifying any sign of a deteriorating situation. People and relatives told us they had access to health and social care professionals when required.

There was a consistent staff team to support people with some use of agency to cover gaps in the rota. The manager advised agency were only utilised to cover shortages in staff resulting from sickness.

The manager informed us they had introduced a key worker system, where each person was assigned a dedicated member of staff (key worker) with responsibility for coordinating their care. Key workers acted as a point of contact for families, ensuring clear and consistent flow of information.

The provider had an Accessible Information statement and policy, ensuring that people received information in formats that suited their needs and preferences. Communication aids such as large print text, audio books, and easy-read formats were available if people needed this.

Notice boards were available within the reception area to give staff, visitors and people information about the service and areas of interest. Menus were displayed in the reception and around the units to share information on the weekly menus. Signage of the units was not available on the first day of the assessment, this was discussed with the provider who installed new signage to support ease of access for people, staff and visitors.

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.

Service user and relative meetings took place regularly and people were encouraged to share their views. Surveys were utilised to obtain feedback from people, relatives and visiting professionals regarding the quality of the service. For example, a survey from a visiting professional stated, “I am always made to feel welcome, and the staff are happy to chat and assist me with the residents.”

Staff were kept updated through handover meetings, daily flash meetings, supervisions and wider staff team meetings. Staff members told us they were aware of where to locate policies and procedure and how to access additional information online. Staff told us the managers were actively listening, and communication was good.

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

There was equity for people when accessing the service and where people needed support to attend appointments or in an emergency. The physical premises of the service were accessible for people with varying levels of mobility or disability, and people had access to the appropriate equipment to enable them to be as independent as possible.

People had access to a varied activity calendar, and cultural events were celebrated such as ‘Chinese New Year’ and ‘Dwali’. Staff had access to equality and diversity training, and a policy and procedure was in place which underpinned working practices.

Health and social care professionals told us they worked effectively with the provider and were complimentary about the care delivered.

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

People were supported to be as independent as they could be. Care plans were outcome focused and promoted people’s independence. The admission process ensured people’s needs were assessed in line with their protected characteristics. Staff were able to describe people’s likes and dislikes and this was reflected in care plans including personal preferences.

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.

The staff team were aware of the importance of supporting people to plan for their future. Records evidenced advanced decisions were discussed and recorded and reflected preferences and wishes. Care plans contained information if people had a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) document. There was one person receiving end of life care at the time of our assessment.

Information was available to support people should an emergency hospital admission be required and information was shared to ensure a safe transfer of care. People were supported at the end of their life by staff who had been trained to do so, and who knew them well.

The provider worked in close partnership with the ‘Frailty Team’ for end-of-life support and the ‘Later Life and Memory Service’ who provide a rapid response for assessment, early intervention and treatment. The provider had obtained the 6 steps end of life accreditation programme for care homes.