Park View Residential Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

Temperature and oxygen level checks plus hand washing (in addition to alcohol gel) were required by the provider on entry. The provider had acted to make sure people could have visitors safely. There had been a temporary gazebo in the garden during the summer, use of the outdoor space, and video conferences for families who could not visit physically. The provider planned to use the room next to the entrance door for visits during the winter.

Where social distancing was not possible staff used other mitigation such as full personal protective equipment (PPE). The provider had moved dining room tables giving space to facilitate social distancing.

The provider was able to effectively isolate people discharged from hospital. The registered manager had updated the admissions policy for COVID-19 with government guidance. The layout of two buildings with multiple lounges allowed specific zones which helped social distancing.

The provider had introduced new standards of hygiene and cleanliness. They had used appropriate cleaning products in the home. The registered manager was auditing regularly.

The staff team had responded positively to new infection prevention and control procedures. The provider had worked closely with local authority teams including support and training. The provider had kept the home free of COVID-19 at the time of our visit.

Park View is a residential care home which was providing personal care to 16 people living with a mental illness or dementia at the time of the inspection. The service is registered for up to 30 younger or older people.

The service comprises of four houses which are arranged into two sets of adjoining houses, Parkview and Parkside. Within each set of houses there are two communal lounges, a dining room and kitchen. There is access for people to mix freely between the two sets of houses, via a communal rear garden.

Since the last inspection the service’s five double bedrooms, had been converted into single bedrooms, each with an en-suite shower and been re-decorated. A further five bedrooms had an en-suite toilet. The service now accommodates up to 21 people and will be applying to amend their registration accordingly.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were happy with the care provided and felt safe and well cared for. A person said, “Whatever I need I get it in here. I cannot ask for a better care.’’ Another person told us, “I’ve chosen this home because it’s well managed, maintained and with a good atmosphere.”

People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse. Staff understood what could constitute abuse and robust processes were in place to protect people. Staff identified, assessed and managed potential risks to people’s safety. Incidents were reviewed and any relevant actions taken to reduce the risk of repetition. People received their medicines safely from competent staff. There were sufficient numbers of competent staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. Processes and procedures were in place to protect people from the risk of acquiring an infection.

People’s needs were assessed and their care and treatment was delivered in accordance with current legislation and good practice guidance. People were supported by skilled and knowledgeable staff. Staff ensured people received plenty of food and drink which was suitable for their needs. Staff worked effectively both together within the service and with external teams to ensure they identified when people required a referral to external services and to share relevant information. The building was suitable for people’s needs. Processes were in place to monitor and promote people’s mental and physical health.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff consistently treated people with kindness, respect and compassion. They understood when people required emotional support and ensured this was provided. Staff encouraged people to express their views and to be involved in all aspects of decisions about their care and support wherever possible. People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected by staff and promoted.

People received personalised care from staff which took into account their wishes, needs and preferences. Staff supported people to participate in activities and to form social links, which reduced the risk of social isolation. Processes were in place to seek and respond to people’s complaints which were seen as an opportunity to make improvements in the service for people. Staff had the required skills to support people at the end of their lives.

The registered manager was experienced and promoted a positive, person centred culture, focused on achieving good outcomes for people. They understood their role and responsibilities and inspired staff to provide good quality care. The registered manager sought the views of people, staff and professionals and acted upon any feedback received. Processes were in place to evaluate the quality of the service provided and to drive improvements. The service worked collaboratively with external agencies to improve outcomes for people.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (29 July 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Staff had undertaken relevant safeguarding training and understood their role in keeping people safe. People we spoke to told us they felt safe within the service. Risks to people had been assessed and measures put in place to manage them for their safety. Staff worked closely with health care professionals to monitor on-going risks to people and ensured required safety checks on the building were completed.

People told us there were enough staff to provide their care. People were cared for by staff whose suitability for their role had been assessed by the provider. Staff had undergone an induction to their role and told us they felt well supported through the provision of regular training and supervision. All staff underwent mental health training to enable them to support people effectively.

Processes were in place to ensure the safe ordering and disposal of medicines and they were stored safely. People received their medicines from competent, trained staff. Accurate records were maintained of people’s medicines administration.

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.

We saw that people experienced pleasurable meal times. They were offered a range of nutritious food choices and plenty to drink. Risks associated with people’s eating or drinking were well managed.

People told us their healthcare needs were well met and that staff supported them to access healthcare services as required.

Staff were kind and considerate towards people. People told us that the staff were caring. People said staff involved them in decisions about their care and that their wishes were respected. Staff ensured people were supported to be as independent as possible. People told us staff upheld their privacy and dignity in the provision of their care.

People had a range of care plans in place to meet their identified needs and these were reviewed and updated with them monthly. People’s mental health care needs were identified and addressed within the care planning process. The service was responsive to changes in people’s care needs and embraced new initiatives that could improve people’s care.

The activities co-ordinator planned both group and one to one sessions across the week; each person also had an individualised weekly activities schedule that was tailored to them as an individual. People were supported to access a range of activities of interest to them.

People told us they felt able to make a complaint if they wished and would just speak out if they needed to. Processes were in place to seek people’s’ feedback on the service and relevant action had been taken in response to any comments received.

The provider had a clear statement which outlined their mission, vision, purpose and values which underpinned the provision of people’s care. Staff were encouraged to speak out about any issues.

People told us they felt able to speak with either the registered manager or the provider. The registered manager and the deputy manager were highly visible in both sides of the service and people approached them at will.

Processes were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and these were completed by both the registered manager and the provider. Where required actions had been identified they had been addressed to improve the service for people.