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 71 (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 needs were assessed prior to them moving into the home. Care was planned in line with their wishes and preferences for how they wanted to receive care and support. People and their loved ones were involved in the assessment of their needs.

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. Whilst care plans and risk assessments were in place some of them were not always updated after reviews had taken place and changes in people's care had been identified. Whilst this did not impact on people’s care, we discussed with the registered manager the need to ensure information was updated which they agreed to action.

People’s hydration and nutritional needs were assessed, supported and met. People and relatives spoke positively about the food and told us there was sufficient to eat and drink. Comments included, “I’m quite impressed with the food”, “The food is excellent and if I’m off colour the staff just tell me to eat what I can and leave the rest” and “Mum loves the food, she eats more now than she ever did.”

People had access to specialist diets where required, for example, fortified food. Where people had specific dietary needs, this was recorded in their care plan to ensure staff were aware of the support they required. Catering staff said they had access to information on people's dietary requirements and allergies, this also included people's likes and dislikes. They explained people had a choice of meals and were able to request alternatives if they did not want what was on the menu.

At lunchtime some people were supported to access the dining room whilst others had their meal in their rooms. People were shown a plated meal to assist them in being able to choose which food they wanted to eat. We observed staff supporting people at a pace that was appropriate to them.

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 was shared between other health and social care professionals to ensure people received continuity in their care. Management and staff worked with other agencies to plan and deliver people’s care and support. A professional said, “I find the staff within Park House very knowledgeable about all their residents and their needs. They use our service regularly and take on board any action plans we discuss to prevent admissions or signposting given. I find staff very approachable and willing.”

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 health and social care professionals to support their physical and emotional wellbeing. Records confirmed people had access to GPs, district nurses and dentists and could attend appointments when required.

People’s health and care needs were monitored, and any changes prompted a referral to their GP or other health care professionals. A person told us, “The staff know me very well and care for me. If I need to see the doctor, I get to see them straight away.”

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 involved in planning their care and support. Whilst care plans and risk assessments were in place some of them were not always updated after reviews had taken place and changes in people's care had been identified. Whilst this did not impact on people’s care, we discussed with the registered manager the need to ensure information was updated which they agreed to action.

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

We looked at how the provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). 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 Act 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 take 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. The application procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Consent to care was sought in line with legislation. Care plans contained mental capacity assessments and where necessary, best interests decisions had been made in conjunction with people's relatives and the care team. However, some mental capacity assessments had not been reviewed to ensure they were still current. In discussion with the registered manager, they said this would be addressed

There were systems in place for the application and monitoring of DoLS. Where required, applications for DoLS authorisations had been submitted by the registered manager to the local authority. Where DoLS applications were in place, these had been regularly reviewed to ensure what was in place remained the least restrictive option.