We carried out a review of the data available to us about Park Vista Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Park Vista Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
accommodation for up to 59 people. At the time of the inspection there were 52 people living in the service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Visitors could visit their family member/friend by appointment. They were asked to complete a rapid COVID-19 test, have their temperature checked and complete questions around COVID-19. The visiting area had a screen and communication system and was accessed by a separate entrance/exit to the home. There were gaps between each visit to clean. End of life visits were also supported. Computer tablets were used to video call family and friends, to help people stay in contact.
External visitors to the home, including health or social care professionals waited to enter. They then signed in, sanitised their hands and had their temperature checked. There may be a request to take COVID-19 lateral flow device test. Or disclose the result of their last COVID-19 PCR test. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) would be made available.
Newsletters with updates were sent to peoples named relative /advocates re COVID-19 restrictions, testing and vaccinations.
People were asked to isolate in their rooms for 14 days if they had been to an external appointment or were a new admission. Zoning plans had been used to zone people into different areas within the home, and staff worked within one zone whilst on shift.
Staff changed into their uniform that had been laundered at the home and put on their PPE before starting work. Staff wore their PPE correctly. Staff were bare below the elbows and wore a minimum amount of jewellery, with long hair tied up. This promoted good infection control practice. There was an infection control lead within the home, who worked alongside nominated staff who were COVID-19 champions.
The home looked visibly clean. Rooms were uncluttered to support effective cleaning. Furniture had been spread out to promote social distancing. Windows were opened to promote good ventilation.
Within the organisation there was a COVID-19 steering group. From this there was a weekly video call to registered managers within the organisation, giving them COVID-19 updates and to discuss any learning.
People’s experience of using this service:
People felt safe living at the service. Risk assessments ensured that action was taken to keep people safe. Staffing levels meant that people were safe and they received their care in a timely manner. People received their medication as prescribed. There were systems in place to record, monitor and learn from accidents and incidents.
Staff had the knowledge, skills and support they required to meet people’s needs effectively. However, they would benefit from specific training about people’s health conditions. People’s physical, emotional and social needs were identified so staff could meet these. People received support with eating and drinking when needed. People were supported to maintain good health and were supported by, or referred to, the relevant healthcare professionals.
People received care and support from staff that were kind and caring. People’s privacy and dignity was protected and promoted. Staff knew people well and what made them happy.People received person centred care that met their needs. Care plans were detailed so that staff knew people’s preferences and how people would like to be supported. Activities were provided according to people’s interests and hobbies. People knew how to make a complaint if needed.
People’s views had been sought in the running of the service. The provider and registered manager had worked hard to identify and make improvements to the service.
Rating at last inspection: Requires Improvement (report published January 2018)
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as scheduled in our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
The accommodation is split over three floors. People support needs varied over the three floors with the first floor being predominantly where people with nursing needs were accommodated.
This unannounced inspection took place over three days, 28 November, 5 and 6 December 2017.
At the previous inspection in January 2017 the home was rated as Good.
At the time of the inspection there was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were not always protected from harm. The procedure for reporting safeguarding incidents had not always been followed and the relevant agencies had not always been notified. Action had not always been taken to prevent a reoccurrence of safeguarding incidents. Information to reduce risks to people was not always recorded. People’s risk assessments were not always updated after significant events.
Medication was administered by trained staff. However information about when medication should be administered was not always available and people did not always receive their medication in a timely manner.
Staff did not always receive supervisions and appraisals in line with the providers expectations.
People’s personal information was not always kept private and secure.
Care plans did not always provide staff with the information that they required to meet people’s individual care and support needs. The care provided was not always based on people’s preferences.
The systems being used to assess, monitor and improve the service provided were not effective. This was because not all areas requiring improvement had been identified.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice
There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs. The recruitment process was followed to ensure that only suitable people employed. The majority of staff received the training they required to meet people’s needs Staff had not received supervisions and appraisals at the frequency determined by the registered provider.
Staff were kind and compassionate when working with people. People’s privacy and dignity were upheld. Visitors were made to feel welcome to the home
Staff monitored people’s health and welfare needs and acted on issues identified.
People told us that they were provided with a choice of food and drink that they enjoyed. When needed, people received the support they needed from staff to eat and drink. Staff supported people to maintain their interests and their links with the local community to promote social inclusion.
People and their relatives had been asked their views on the quality of the service and what improvements could be made so that they were involved in the running of the home.
We found six breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Registration) Regulations 2009. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
This comprehensive inspection took place on 10 and 11 January 2017 and was unannounced.
There was no registered manager in place. The provider was in the process of employing a new manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the home is run.
People were not always protected from the risk of dehydration. Records to document and monitor people’s fluid intake were not always completed fully or accurately and audits had not been robust.
Systems were in place to assess and manage risks to people using the home. Staff understood the risks for people and staff responsibilities within the home. Information about emergencies was available for staff.
The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which apply to care services. People’s capacity to make decisions for themselves had been assessed. Staff were trained and understood the principles of the MCA and DoLS and were able to describe how people were supported to make decisions if they lacked capacity. We saw that appropriate DoLS authorisations were either in place or had been requested to lawfully deprive people of their liberty. Authorisations in place were for people’s own safety because they were unable to make decisions on where they should live safely.
People were kept safe because there was a sufficient number of staff on duty to meet people’s needs. The provider’s recruitment and selection process ensured that staff had the right skills and experience. Checks were carried out through the disclosure and barring service to ensure that staff were suitable to look after people who lived at Park Vista Care Home. Staff received an induction when they started work and further training which provided them with the skills they needed to meet people’s needs.
Staff knew how to support and meet people’s needs. People were involved in how their care and support was provided. People had access to health care professionals when they needed them. Staff treated people with care and respect and made sure that their privacy and dignity was respected all the time.
People and staff were able to provide feedback and information so that the provider could monitor and improve the quality of the home. The management team had an open door policy which meant anyone could make a complaint and make comments or improvements about the care and support provided.
This unannounced inspection took place on 14 and 15 June 2016.
The service did not have a registered manager. The last registered manager left their position in October 2014. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The provider had appointed a new manager but they had not yet applied to become the registered manager with CQC.
People were not always supported to take their medicines as prescribed and medicines were not always safely managed.
Procedures in place to check the quality of the care provided had not always identified issues in relation to the completion of food and fluid charts, re positioning charts and people’s daily note records.
An effective induction process was in place to support new staff and further training was provided to ensure all staff had the necessary expertise and skills.
People were involved when their needs had been assessed and reviewed so that staff knew how to provide the care and support they needed.
The risk of harm for people was reduced because staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. There was a sufficient number of staff to meet the care and support needs of people living in the home. Satisfactory pre-employment checks were completed before staff worked in the home.
People were supported to be as safe as possible because assessments of risks had been completed and included details of how the risks could be managed. This meant staff had the information they needed to reduce risks.
Staff were trained in the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and could describe how people were supported to make decisions.
People had sufficient food and drink of their choice throughout the day. People were supported by kind, caring and happy staff. People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff.
Feedback and information from people, staff meetings and other meetings were used to monitor the quality of the service.
We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 28 April 2015. Two breaches of legal requirements were found. This was because staff had not responded to allegations of harm and had not reported the allegations to the local authority safeguarding team. Risk assessments relating to health and challenging behaviour had not been carried out or recorded.
After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches. We undertook an unannounced focused inspection on 13 November 2015 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. We found that the provider had not fully completed their plan which they told us would be completed by 31 August 2015. The actions to safeguard people from harm had been improved; however the assessment of the risks to the health and safety of people meant legal requirements had not been met. As a result a warning notice in relation to risk assessments was made. The provider was required to be compliant by 18 December 2015.
This report only covers our findings in relation to the warning notice. You can read the reports from our last comprehensive and focused inspections, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Park Vista Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Park Vista Care Home provides accommodation for up to 59 people who require personal care or nursing care. The home provides support for older people, some of whom are living with dementia. There were 44 people living in the home when we visited.
There was a manager in post at the time of the inspection but they were not yet registered with the Commission. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
At our unannounced focused inspection on 31 December 2015 we found that the provider was compliant with the warning notice.
Since the last inspection comprehensive changes had been made in the information provided to staff so that they could ensure people were kept safe when they or others had behaviour that challenged.
We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 28 April 2015. Two breaches of legal requirements were found. This was because staff had not responded to allegations of abuse and had not reported the allegations to the local authority safeguarding team. Risk assessments relating to health and challenging behaviour had not been carried out or recorded.
After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches. We undertook this focused inspection on 13 November 2015 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements.
This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Park Vista Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Park Vista Care Home provides accommodation for up to 59 people who require personal care or nursing care. The home provides support for older people, some of whom are living with dementia. There were 47 people living in the home at the time of our inspection.
There was a new manager in post at the time of the inspection but they were not yet registered with the commission. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
At our focussed inspection on 13 November 2015 we found that the provider had not fully completed their plan which they told us would be completed by 31 August 2015. The actions to safeguard people from harm had been improved, however the assessment of the risks to the health and safety of people meant legal requirements had not been met.
The provider had taken action to ensure suspicions and allegations of harm were reported to the manager or provider in line with the policies and procedures in the home. However some staff still did not recognise when people may have been hurt.
People who had behaviours that challenged themselves or other people did not have their risks identified nor were there details of how the risks could be minimised. Staff did not have the information they needed to support and respond appropriately with people who had behavioural challenges.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
Park Vista Care Home provides accommodation for up to 59 people who require personal care or nursing care. The home provides support for older people, some of whom are living with dementia. Accommodation is provided over three floors. The home is a mix of new and old areas and there were many places where people can sit on their own, or sit with their visitors in private without going to their bedroom. There are some large communal areas such as a conservatory and sitting rooms that could accommodate larger groups. There were 45 people living in the home at the time of our inspection.
We carried out this unannounced inspection on 28 April 2015. We last inspected Park Vista Care Home in November 2014. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the essential standards that we assessed.
There was no registered manager in post at the time of this inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. Although there were systems and processes in place, mental capacity assessments and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had not been followed for everyone.
Although staff knew how to recognise abuse we found that the appropriate authorities had not always been informed of incidents that they should have been. People’s records did not always identify their individual risks or how they could be minimised.
People were not always looked after by enough staff to support them with their individual needs. People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed but not all records of medicines administered were accurate.
People had access to a wide variety of health professionals who were requested appropriately by staff and who provided information for staff to follow to maintain people’s health and wellbeing. People’s individual health and nutritional needs were met as staff provided support where needed.
People were looked after by staff who were deemed suitable to work at the home because there was a system of pre-employment safety checks to ensure that they were of good character. Although staff felt supported, a system of regular supervisions and appraisals was not in place at the home.
People were supported by staff who were respectful, caring, and treated them with dignity.
People were able to make decisions about their daily lives, their interests and activities. However, their care plans did not always reflect those choices.
People and their relatives could be confident that any concerns would be investigated, although records needed to be written in line with the complaints procedure. Although accidents and incidents had been recorded, they had not been audited. This meant that any trends that might be in place had not been identified and that actions to reduce risk of reoccurrence had not been taken.
People’s views had been requested, the monitoring of the quality of the service provided had been used to drive improvement.
We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
During our last inspection, which we carried out on 21 July 2014, we found that people were placed at risk because the recording and storage of medication needed improvement. During this inspection of 11 November 2014, we found that satisfactory action was taken and people were now safer in relation to improved medication procedures.
In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.
As part of this inspection we observed activities taking place, spoke with eight people who used the service, two relatives of people who used the service, a visiting health care professional, the registered manager, two representatives of the registered provider and seven members of staff. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the service which included seven care plans, daily records, staff records and quality assurance monitoring records.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.
Is the service safe?
People who used the service indicated that their social and health care needs were met in a safe and appropriate way. People also felt safe because they had confidence in the staff members. Family members of people who used the service also said that they felt their relative was kept safe because they were well looked after.
Health and safety risk assessments had been carried out and measures were in place to minimise these and to keep people safe.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care services. Applications have needed to be submitted and proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff have been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.
People were given their medication as prescribed and said that they were satisfied with how this was being done. However, improvements are required in relation to the recording and storage of some of the medication. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to the recording and storage of medication.
There was a sufficient number of staff employed to provide people with safe and appropriate care as planned.
Is the service effective?
People's choices and decisions about their support and care were respected and valued. People and their visiting relatives told us that they were actively consulted, about their, or their relatives' support and care.
Procedures were in place, but not all of the people's care records were detailed enough regarding mental capacity assessments and assessing a person's mental health. An audit of people's care records had identified similar deficiencies in this area. Work was in progress to improve the standard of this assessment and recording. People who were considered not able to understand complex information were represented by people who were legally appointed to do so.
People were supported to engage in social and recreational activities. People told us that they did not get bored or feel isolated.
Is the service caring?
People who used the service, and their visitors, told us that members of staff were kind, caring and considerate. Our observations noted that members of staff interacted with people who used the service in an attentive, patient, kind and caring way.
Is the service responsive?
Members of staff demonstrated to us how they respected people's choices and decisions about their support and care.
People's individual social care needs were responded to. People were supported to maintain contact with their family members.
Is the service well-led?
Members of staff told us that they had the training and support to safely do their job, which they said they enjoyed.
People, including members of staff and family members of people who used the service, were provided with opportunities to make suggestions and comments to improve the quality of people's support and care.
Information in relation to the condition of the premises, accidents and incidents was analysed and remedial action was taken, if required. This was to improve the health and safety of people living, visiting or working at Park Vista Care Home.
A system was in place to carry out audits of a number of areas and by different designated people. These audits included those for medication, care records and the health and wellbeing of people living at the care home. Actions were identified and carried forward, if needed, with the aim to improve the quality and safety of people's support and care.
Since our previous inspection of 27 June 2014 we have approved an application to register the manager.
All of the people that were spoken with were very satisfied with the standard and quality of their support, care and treatment. People's health and safety risks were assessed and effective measures were taken to minimise these risks. People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing with the support to access to health care professionals and to engage in social activities of their choosing.
People had sufficient amounts to eat and drink. People said that they liked the food and there were menu choices made available to them.
Equipment was provided and maintained to ensure that people's support, care and treatment needs were safely and appropriately met.
Members of staff told us that they enjoyed their work, which they found rewarding. Work was in progress to improve the frequency for members of staff to receive formal supervision and to attend training.
Quality assurance systems were in place to listen to what people had to say about the standard and quality of the service provided. Other quality systems were in place to ensure that Park Vista Care Home was a safe and comfortable place for people to live, work and visit.
People we spoke with included people who used the service, their guests and visiting health and social care professionals. All of these people had positive comments about the standard of care provided. One person summarised it by saying the care was, "Very, very, very good. I get looked after very well. They (the staff) also do as you ask and it gets done." A visitor said that, if ever they needed to be looked after in a care home, they would want to live at Park Vista Care Home, because of the standard of care provided.
People living at the home told us that they were satisfied with their room as these were cleaned every day. One person said that the housekeeping staff kept their room clean and tidy, "Very well."
Although none of the people we spoke with had any concerns or complaints to make, they knew who they would speak with if they were unhappy.
However, one person said that the staff were less than, "Helpful" although they were not able to elaborate and tell us why they felt like this.