Updated
9 March 2021
At the last inspection on 24 and 25 October and 2 November 2017 we found two breaches of regulation. People’s risk levels had not always been sufficiently assessed to fully minimise potential impact on people, quality monitoring systems had not always identified shortfalls in quality and risk management and robust staff recruitment procedures had not always been followed before staff worked with people.
We asked the provider to complete an action plan, which we received, to show us what they would do and by when, to meet Regulation 17 and 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and to improve the overall rating of the service.
During this inspection, on 4 and 5 December 2018, we found people’s risks were assessed and reassessed following changes in health and abilities. Staff started work after appropriate recruitment checks had been completed. Quality monitoring processes identified areas for improvement, which were being planned and completed. The breaches in regulation had been met.
The overall rating for the service has improved to ‘Good’.
About the service:
• Park View is a newly built, residential care home, which opened in 2016. It can provide personal and nursing care to 102 people. At the time of the inspection areas of the home were still being commissioned and 69 people in total received care. The home catered predominantly for people who were 65 years and over. Staff supported a wide range of needs which included people who required very little support, to people who were fully dependent and required nursing care. It also supported people who lived with to dementia.
People’s experience of using this service:
• The building and its adaptions helped people with diverse needs live safely and comfortably. The provider had identified that improvements were needed to the areas where people who lived with dementia were supported. We have made a recommendation about seeking current best practice in doing this.
• Risks to people’s health were identified, assessed and action taken to reduce these, or where possible, remove risk altogether.
• The home’s policies and procedures, staff knowledge and practices supported a zero tolerance of abuse or discrimination.
• Some people commented, there needed to be more staff, however, we observed people receiving timely support and call bells were answered without delay.
• Necessary recruitment checks were completed, before, staff started work at the home in order to protect people from those who may not be suitable to care for them. On-going staff recruitment ensured staff with the right skills and knowledge were employed.
• People’s medicines were managed safely and people received help to take these.
• Planned maintenance, servicing and cleaning arrangements kept the environment and equipment safe and clean.
• Infection control arrangements reduced the risk of infection.
• The building was secured but technology allowed people and designated relatives to come and go as they chose.
• People’s needs were assessed before they moved in and re-assessed at intervals, to ensure their care and treatment remained appropriate.
• Staff received training and support to be able to manage people’s needs, preferences and expectations.
• People had good access to health and social care professionals when needed.
• People had a choice in what they ate and drank and their nutritional wellbeing was supported.
• People’s care was planned with their involvement and, where appropriate, with the involvement of those who represented them. Care records were kept up to date so staff and visiting professionals had the right information about people’s needs.
• Care was delivered in a personalised way, respecting individual choice and preference.
• People had access to supported activities and opportunities to socialise but some felt there was not enough. Action had been taken to support more personalised activities.
• People were supported to retain skills and to be independent.
• Staff were caring and compassionate towards people. They understood people’s needs and had developed good relationships with them.
• Staff supported those who mattered to people and family and friends were made welcome. Where appropriate, the involvement of people’s relatives and others close to them, was encouraged and valued.
• Staff worked with other professionals and agencies to ensure people’s rights were upheld. Where needed senior staff advocated for people and ensured people had access to independent advocacy.
• People’s privacy and dignity during care was upheld and information about people’s care and treatment was kept confidential and only discussed with appropriate persons. All care and treatment records were kept secure.
• People diverse preferences were explored with them and staff aimed to support these and ensure these were respected. People were treated equally irrespective of disability, age, religion, culture, diverse personal relationships or sexual preference; as were those who mattered to people. The provider’s policies and procedures and the managers’ expectations supported this practice.
• People’s wishes and decisions at the end of their life were respected and met. There were arrangements in place to support a dignified and comfortable death.
• People’s consent was sought before care and treatment was provided. 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.
• People, no longer able to give consent or make independent decisions, were protected. Where appropriate people’s mental capacity was assessed and decisions made on a person’s behalf, were made in their best interests. Appropriate representatives were included in this process.
• Managers promoted an open, inclusive and empowering culture which supported effective communication between them, people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. Managers were accessible and approachable.
• Feedback from people, relatives, visiting professionals and staff had been welcomed and used for learning and improvement purposes.
• Areas of dissatisfaction were proactively managed and complaints investigated and resolved where possible.
• Quality monitoring systems led to action being identified and taken, which led to better and improved outcomes for people.
Rating at last inspection:
• The last inspection report was published on 20 December 2017 and the services rating was ‘Requires Improvement’.
Why we inspected:
• This inspection was a scheduled inspection based on the previous rating.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.