Parklands Care Home

Updated 10 November 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the registered provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 2 October 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care (ASC) inspector and one expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The experts by experience who assisted with this inspection had knowledge and experience relating to older people and those living with dementia.

Before the inspection, we looked at information we held about the service, which included notifications sent to us since the last inspection. Notifications are when registered providers send us information about certain changes, events or incidents that occur within the service.

Before the inspection we asked the registered provider to submit a provider information return (PIR) prior to the inspection and this was returned within the given timescale. The PIR is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. As part of the inspection process we contacted the local authority who provided their feedback.

At this inspection we spoke with the manager, the administration officer, the chef and kitchen assistant, the laundry assistant, six care workers and a district nurse. We spoke with five people and eight relatives who were visiting people at the home.

We observed interactions between people, relatives and care workers in the communal areas and during mealtimes. We looked at how the provider managed and administered people's medicines and we observed a medication round.

We looked at all areas of the home, including bedrooms (with people's permission). We spent time in the office looking at records associated with the running and management of the home. We looked at individual care records for three people who lived there and we looked at records on file for four care workers.

Updated 10 November 2017

The inspection took place on 2 October 2017 and was unannounced.

Parklands care home provides residential care for up to 30 older people and people who may have a dementia related condition. It is situated in the village of Rawcliffe, five miles from the town of Goole, in the East Riding of Yorkshire. There are various communal areas including lounges and dining rooms for people to use. People have access to outside gardens and seating areas, which are provided in secure settings. There is car parking for staff and visitors to the rear of the home.

There was a registered manager in post. 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. The registered manager will be referred to as 'manager' throughout the report.

At the last inspection in May and July 2016 the overall rating for the service was Good. The rating for Responsive was Requires Improvement. This was because we found the provider did not have adequate systems and processes to record and respond to complaints. We made a recommendation for the provider to seek advice and guidance on the management of complaints. During this inspection we checked and found improvements had been implemented based on our recommendations with a clear process in place to record and respond to complaints.

Systems and processes were in place that helped keep people safe from harm and abuse. Care workers had completed safeguarding training and knew the signs of abuse to look out for and how to raise any concerns.

The provider ensured there were sufficient skilled and qualified care workers to meet people's individual needs and preferences. Recruitment checks were completed that helped the provider to make safer recruiting decisions and minimise the risk of unsuitable people working with vulnerable adults.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Care workers understood their responsibilities under the MCA and were actively promoting people’s independence. The manager and care workers had an understanding of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They had made appropriate referrals to the relevant authorities to ensure people's rights were protected.

The provider was implementing measures to ensure consent to care and support was robustly recorded and were reviewing their policies and procedures for obtaining and recording consent.

People were supported with their health and wellbeing and had access to other health services when they needed to.

We received positive feedback about meal time arrangements at the home. The chef was aware of and catered for people’s specific dietary requirements that were recorded in their care plans.

An activities coordinator ensured people were supported to enjoy a programme of activities that they could join in on their own or as part of a group. People were supported to ensure they did not become socially isolated.

Systems and processes were in place to ensure medicines were managed and administered safely as prescribed in line with best practice.

There were systems of audit in place to check, monitor and improve the quality of the service. We recommend the provider review their quality assurance policies and procedures to assure their effectiveness.

The manager understood their responsibilities as part of their registration with the CQC and had informed the CQC of significant events in a timely way. However, we found that notifications to the CQC for applications and outcomes of four DoLS that are required as part of their registration had not always been completed effectively. We recommend that the provider reviews their process for submitting all required notifications.

Everybody spoke highly of the manager staff team and the service provided.