Archived: Parkview Gardens

Updated 27 March 2021

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 provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC's response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 16 March 2021 and was announced shortly beforehand.

Updated 27 March 2021

This unannounced inspection visit took place on 26 and 27 March 2018.

Parkview Gardens is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to 60 people. At the time of the inspection visit there were 42 people residing at the home.

Parkview Gardens supports older people, people living with dementia and sensory impairments and people with physical disabilities who require residential care. The home is divided into five units all of which have communal spaces, dining areas and cooking facilities. At the time of the inspection visit only four of the five units were open. All bedrooms within the home are single and have ensuite facilities. The home is built over two floors, which are accessible by stairs or lift. The home has a secure garden area, a shop, a laundry, café area and a hairdresser’s salon.

At the time of the inspection there was a registered manager in place; However they were currently absent and the service was being supported by the operations manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 service was registered with the Care Quality Commission in December 2016. This was the first inspection of the service.

People spoke positively about the service they received. They told us care provision was good and said staff were kind and caring. In addition, relatives and professionals we spoke with told us the service provided good care. They told us people’s health needs were met and people experienced positive outcomes. They said staff were positive about the people and were committed to ensuring a good standard of care was delivered at all times.

Good practice guidance had been considered when designing the home to ensure people were not restricted and to promote positive well-being. This included the use of technology to promote independence and keep people safe. Staff told us the consideration to good practice guidance had improved health outcomes for people.

During the inspection we observed people being offered emotional support in a sensitive and timely manner. People responded positively to staff interaction. Privacy and dignity was routinely considered by staff.

Relatives praised the flexibility of the service and the ways in which visitors were welcomed at the home. They told us they could visit whenever they wished and said pets and children were also welcomed.

We saw evidence of multi-agency working to promote effective care. A professional praised the skills and knowledge of staff who worked at the home. Relatives told us the home was good at meeting the needs of people.

Staff told us they were supported in their role by the operations manager and were encouraged to progress with self-development. We saw evidence of staff using good practice guidance to develop and implement effective care for people who lived at the home.

We received positive feedback about the quality of food provided at the home. People were offered choices to meet their preferences and dietary needs. Consideration had been made to ensuring meals were person centred and pleasing. Drinks and snacks were accessible at all times.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe living at the home. Systems were in place to safeguard people from abuse. Risks were assessed and safety of people was monitored by staff on an ongoing basis. We saw there was a person centred approach to managing risk which contributed to positive outcomes for people.

We reviewed accidents and incidents that had occurred at the home. We saw records were maintained following accidents and incidents occurring. Audits were carried out on a monthly basis to look for common themes and trends.

People, relatives and professionals told us there were enough staff on duty to meet individual needs. Staffing levels allowed people to feel safe and pursue activities of their choosing.

There was an emphasis upon encouraging people to remain independent wherever possible and have active lives. We saw people participating in household chores. Activities were organised throughout the home for people to participate in, if they wished. In addition, we noted activities and resources were readily available throughout the home for people to access.

People were happy with processes for managing their medicines. We reviewed medicines administration and documentation and found this to be sometimes safe. We have made a recommendation about this.

The home was clean, tidy and well maintained. People and relatives praised the standard of cleanliness throughout the home.

Staff retention was good. The home did not use agency staff to cover any staffing voids. This meant people were supported by staff that knew people well and allowed person centred care to be delivered.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Consent to care and treatment was routinely sought. People had freedom to mobilise throughout the building and external spaces.

People and relatives told us they were happy with the service and had no complaints. The service had a complaints procedure which was made available to people and their relatives. People were encouraged to discuss and raise any concerns through the resident’s meetings or on an individual basis.

People and their relatives told us they considered the service to be well led.

Staff told us there had been an improvement in morale and leadership since the operations manager had been directly supporting the home. They said the home was a good place to work. They told us communication had improved and described the operations manager as effective and approachable. Staff had a clear vision and demonstrated commitment towards delivering high quality care.

People were encouraged to have a say in how the home was managed. This included involving people in the recruitment of staff and having conversations with them regarding activities and nutrition at the home.

The management team had implemented a range of assurance systems to monitor quality and effectiveness of the service provided. We saw audits were routinely carried out and action was taken when concerns were identified.

We saw evidence that the provider was referencing current legislation, standards and evidence based guidance to achieve effective outcomes.

The registered provider was proactive in ensuring continuous development at the home. This was achieved through multi-agency working, self-development and referring to good practice guidelines which were embedded into practice.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.