Parker House Nursing Home

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

People’s wishes and preferences were assessed and documented. People and those important to them were involved in planning and reviewing care. People told us they felt the registered manager was approachable and acted upon on any feedback. Staff supported people to raise concerns and provide feedback. Staff listened, respected and supported people to share their ideas. However, people were not consistently supported in a person-centred way. We found inconsistencies in how staff supported and communicated with people.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

During the inspection we observed most staff to treat people kindly and as individuals. We observed most of the staff to use people’s names and ensure consent was gained before supporting them. However, we observed some staff to be less empathetic towards people and appeared task orientated. For example, we observed a person receiving support to move and staff did not always communicate clearly with them. We also found people were not offered a variety in how they wanted to spend their time. We observed people to stay in the same place in the same chairs for most of the day. We found many bedrooms did not have chairs in, which meant the only place people could sit would be their bed. We observed staff to offer people a variety of foods aligned with their likes and dislikes.

People told us staff treated them kindly and treated them as individuals. People we spoke with told us staff knew their needs well and respected their choices. A person we spoke with said, “I was asked if I had a preference and I asked for females with my personal care, and that happens.” Relatives told us staff got to know their loved one’s before developing their support plans, relatives told us they were included in developing support plans to ensure people received care aligned with their needs and wishes. A relative told us, “They spent a week monitoring my [relative] first. When their needs have changed, they tell me and update their plan. I’m kept well informed.” Another relative we spoke with us said, “We’ve been involved all the way.”

Staff mostly responded to people’s needs well. Staff knew people and told us they delivered person-centred care. Staff told us, “We strive to adapt and evolve, to meet the changing needs of the people we care for and uphold the principles of person-centred care.” The manager told us they completed resident of the day to ensure people’s full needs were reviewed. However, we found these had been inconsistently completed, some were completed to a high standard whereas others were incomplete. The registered manager told us they were aware of this and had highlighted this with staff during a recent meeting. Some staff told us, the only thing they would look to improve at the home is more opportunities for people to spend time doing things they enjoyed. For example, one staff told us, “I would like to take people out more to spend time doing things they like such as going out for a coffee or a meal” and another staff member said, “While a lot of effort is put into activities within the home, people might appreciate more external activities. It would also be nice to see more inclusion of the family and friends of residents, for example by organising a Christmas or summer fair."

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People and their relatives told us they knew who to talk if they wanted to make comments or raise any concerns. A relative said, “I raised something, and it was soon sorted.” Most people we spoke with said staff and the management were approachable and listened. A person said, “I asked them not to rush me and they respected this.” However, another person said that whilst they felt able to raise concerns some staff were better than others at listening. People told us, they felt able and confident to raise concerns and compliments to the registered manager.

Staff listened, respected and supported people to share their ideas. Staff said, “All people and their families have the freedom to express their feelings, choices and wishes.” The registered manager told us they had organised meetings since our last inspection to talk to people and their families. The registered manager understood their duty to ensure all concerns and complaints were responded to in a timely manner.

Processes in place supported people to share their views about Parker House and the support they received. Meeting minutes we reviewed demonstrated people were supported to speak freely. Where suggestions were made, feedback and action was taken. For example, a person provided feedback about the food and action was taken to address these issues. There was a complaints policy in place and all complaints raised were investigated and responded to in a timely manner. Minor concerns were also documented, and staff informed of any changes needed as a result of a concern being raised. For example, we reviewed a concern about a person not wearing warm clothes, all staff were informed of the importance of this to the person. We reviewed several compliments Parker House had received regarding the support staff provided.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.