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 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff 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.

Staff knew people well and supported them in line with how they wished to have their care provided. We observed staff supporting people with kindness, seeking permission before providing 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. For example, a recent review identified a person who had suffered weight loss and a dietician referral that had been made but the care plan had not been updated to reflect this. Another person’s mobility care plan did not mention they used a Zimmer frame.

Daily records were task focused with no reflection of people's mood or the activities they had been involved in. Repositioning charts did not reflect how people had been moved. Fluid charts had no targets or totals relating to fluid intake.

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.

People had access to healthcare services to support them to maintain good health and ensure they received continuity of care. Records in people's care plans showed visits from health professionals such as GP's and district nurses.

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

Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication.

Care plans contained information on people’s preferred methods of communication. People and their relatives were invited to attend regular meetings where information relating to the service was shared and they were invited to share their thoughts and ideas on what could be improved.

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.

Complaints and concerns were taken seriously and responded to in line with the provider’s policy. Complaints had been dealt with in line with the provider's procedure and resolved to people's satisfaction in a timely manner.

People and their relatives said they knew how to raise their concerns and felt comfortable doing so. Comments included, “If there’s ever a problem, we approach the senior carer. To be fair, it’s very rare” and “I don’t have any problems here, so don’t have the need to complain.”

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

The home was spacious and allowed people to spend time on their own should they wish. The service was accessible for people with mobility needs. Corridors were wide enough to accommodate people in wheelchairs and there were ramps to aid access to the building. People had access to a lift to ensure they could move safely between floors. There was signage to help people orientate themselves to bathrooms and toilets.

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.

People and their relatives were involved in planning how they wished care and support to be provided. People and their relatives told us they were happy with the support they received. Comments included, “The care is very good. I don’t really have any problems. The staff seem well enough trained and if I’m in any discomfort, they deal with it quite quickly” and “I can’t fault them, everything I need they try and get. The staff normally talk to me about my care.”

People and their relatives were invited to share their thoughts about the service. Care plans were regularly reviewed and gave people an opportunity to raise any concerns about inequalities they felt they were facing.

Staff supported people to raise concerns. A staff member said, “We ask residents about choice and respect their wishes. We have a resident and relative meeting which they can raise any concerns and if needs be, then we can act on it to make sure they feel supported.”

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.

Care plans were regularly reviewed to support people and their relatives to plan for any future changes to care needs.

Care planning supported people and their loved ones to plan for their future and how they wanted end of life care to be provided.