- Care home
Park View Residential Care Home
Assessment report published 13 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Our view of the service
About the service
Park View Residential Care Home is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 60 people. At the time of our inspection there were 52 people living at the service. Accommodation is provided over two floors, accessed by a lift.
Who the service is for
The service supports older people, younger people and people living with dementia.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 28 September 2016. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
We found some areas where improvements were required to ensure the home maintained appropriate infection prevention and control, environmental safety and improvements to governance systems to ensure issues were consistently identified and addressed. Following our inspection the registered manager took swift action to improve the service.
Risks associated with people’s care were identified and managed to keep people safe. Risk assessments and care plans were detailed and care was delivered in line with them. Staff were recruited safely and received training and support to carry out their role effectively. Staff told us they felt supported and received regular supervision sessions with their line manager. People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse and staff knew what action to take if they suspected abuse. One staff member said, “If I suspected any kind of abuse, I would report it immediately and I feel it would be taken serious and they [management team] will follow it up.” Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed to ensure trends and patterns were identified to improve practice. Lessons learnt exercises were completed and shared with staff. People received their medicines as prescribed by staff who were trained and competent in the safe administration of medicines.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
People’s needs were assessed and care was delivered in line with them. Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed monthly to ensure they reflected any changes in care delivery. People received sufficient food and hydration to maintain a healthy balanced diet. Modified diets were provided for people who required them and staff assisted people with food and drinks as appropriate. People had access to healthcare professionals as required and staff told us they had good working relationships with external professionals. One external professional said, “Management and staff have been happy to sit and talk and give updates on clients and how they have been. I have found them honest in their feedback which helps and supports me in being able to have honest discussions with client’s family members when looking at future support for clients, how best to support care and support needs, maintain independence, and support health, wellbeing and safety.”
Consent forms were documented in care plans such as consent to information and photography sharing, and care plan involvement. We saw people were offered choices and staff respected their decision, such as what they wanted to eat, drink and where they wanted to sit.
Staff were kind, caring and understanding of people’s needs. Staff promoted people’s independence and there was a range of different sitting areas where people could choose to sit. The home had a garden area, although independent access to this could be improved. The home had achieved the Veteran Friendly Framework (VFF) status, which aims to better support the practical, emotional and social needs of the armed forces community living in care homes. They told us, “Park View has consistently shown a positive, proactive approach when engaging with our veteran community. Communication with the service is always respectful, timely, and collaborative. When we provide guidance or suggestions particularly around veteran engagement, wellbeing activities, or community inclusion. The staff and management respond constructively and follow through on agreed actions.” People had access to activity co-ordinators who provided a range of social activities, events and stimulation.
The provider had a complaints procedure which was displayed in the home. The registered manager investigated complaints in line with their policy and took action to learn from them. People had several opportunities to voice their opinions about the service such as meetings, quality questionnaires and suggestion boxes. People's goals and outcomes were recorded and monitored in people's care plans.
The management team promoted the provider’s values throughout the service and made it their mission to enrich people’s lives. The provider’s values were based on 6 senses, the sense of security, belonging, continuity, purpose, achievement and significance. The management team worked well together to support staff. They completed a range of audits on a monthly basis to ensure the service was working in line with the providers expectations. However, some further work was required to ensure audits identified issues swiftly so appropriate actions could be taken.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with people and their relatives to gather their views of the service. We also carried out a range of observations throughout the service, including a SOFI (Short Observational Framework for Inspection] to gather evidence of people’s experience where they were not able to verbally communicate with us.
We found people were happy living at the service and told us they felt safe. However, some people told us there were occasions when they had to wait for staff to support them. One person said, “[Staffing] can sometimes be a problem, mostly at weekends.” A relative said, “Sometimes there aren’t enough staff but it’s usually ok.” We spoke with the management team about staffing, and they agreed to carry out observations to ensure staff were deployed effectively.
Relatives told us they felt involved in their family members care and were informed of events that affected their family members. One relative said, “They [staff] rang me about [family member’s] fall and let me know what had happened.”
People and relatives told us the home was clean and their rooms were kept tidy. Relatives commented that staff wore personal protective equipment when carrying out tasks. People told us they received their medicines as prescribed. One person said, “I get my medication when I should.”
People and relatives were involved in reviewing their care and support needs. One relative said, “[Family member] was assessed and we were asked about their needs.”
People told us staff were kind, friendly and nothing was ever too much trouble. One relative said, “All staff are friendly and chatty.” Another relative said, “They [staff] have a lovely way of talking to [family member].” One person said, “They [staff] are great. If you want anything I just ask and they get if for me.”
An activity co-ordinator provided social stimulation for people. One relative said, “I have had my last 2 Christmas dinners here. They [staff] are great. They put a table out just for our family. It was a lovely meal.”
People told us they were supported to access health care professionals when required. One person said, “I have seen the doctor and the chiropodist.” One relative said, “The physiotherapist has been to see [family member].”