You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 August 2018

This inspection took place on 30 July 2018 and was unannounced.

Park View is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Park View accommodates up to 10 people living with a learning disability and or physical disability in an adapted building. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support CQC policy and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

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.

At the last inspection on 26 June 2017, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements regarding fire safety, and this action has been completed. Following that inspection, the service was rated Requires Improvement. At this inspection we found the service to be Good.

People were safeguarded from avoidable harm. Staff adhered to safeguarding adult’s procedures and reported any concerns to their manager and the local authority.

Staff assessed, managed and reduced risks to people’s safety at the service and in the community. There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Safe medicines management was followed and people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff protected people from the risk of infection and followed procedures to prevent and control the spread of infections.

Staff completed regular refresher training to ensure their knowledge and skills stayed in line with good practice guidance. Staff shared knowledge with their colleagues to ensure any learning was shared throughout the team.

Staff supported people to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. Staff liaised with other health and social care professionals and ensured people received effective, coordinated care in regard to any health needs.

Staff applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. An appropriate, well maintained environment was provided that met people’s needs.

Staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion. They were aware of people’s communication methods and how they expressed themselves. Staff empowered people to make choices about their care. Staff respected people’s individual differences and supported them with any religious or cultural needs. Staff supported people to maintain relationships with families. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and promoted.

People received personalised care that met their needs. Assessments were undertaken to identify people’s support needs and these were regularly reviewed. Detailed care records were developed informing staff of the level of support people required and how they wanted it to be delivered. People participated in a range of activities.

A complaints process ensured any concerns raised were listened to and investigated.

The registered manager adhered to the requirements of their Care Quality Commission registration, including submitting notifications about key events that occurred. An inclusive and open culture had been established and the provider welcomed feedback from staff, relatives and health and social care professionals in order to improve service delivery. A programme of

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 August 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected against abuse by staff who understood their responsibility to safeguard people. Risks associated with people�s needs were assessed and action was taken to reduce these risks.

Medicines were managed safely.

The provider�s recruitment process ensured appropriate checks were undertaken to ensure staff suitability to work with adults at risk.

Staffing levels were based on individual needs.

Systems were in place to ensure that ongoing learning took place when there were concerns.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 August 2018

The service was effective.

People were always asked for their permission before personal care and support was provided. Where needed, people�s ability to make decisions was assessed in line with the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA).

Staff received supervisions, appraisals and training to help them in their role.

People were supported to ensure they received adequate nutrition and hydration.

Staff worked well as a team and people were supported to maintain good health and had access to appropriate healthcare services.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 August 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were kind, caring and

supported their independence.

People were involved in decisions about their care and the home.

People's privacy and dignity was respected and maintained.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 August 2018

The service was responsive.

Staff understood people�s needs and responded appropriately when these changed.

People were provided with appropriate mental and physical stimulation.

There was a process in place to deal with any complaints or concerns if they were raised.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 August 2018

The service was well led.

Systems were in place to ensure a quality service was being provided and develop further.

Staff felt supported and confident to raise concerns with the manager who they felt would take all necessary action to address any concerns. The provider�s values were clear and understood by staff.

People, their families and staff had the opportunity to become involved in developing the service.