Archived: Park Lane

We found the following examples of good practice.

Staff were adhering to personal protective equipment (PPE) guidelines and social distancing guidance.

Staff had been provided with supervision to support communication with people living in the home whilst wearing a mask.

The registered manager of the care home had spoken with the relatives of all of the people living in the home to determine their preferred mode of communication whilst visiting restrictions were in place.

Changes had been made following monthly infection prevention audits. To support the storage of PPE and testing kits, room changes providing increased storage space had been made. The clinical room had been upgraded and a designated testing room developed.

Staff wellbeing was supported through return to work interviews and access to counselling services.

About the service

Park Lane is a care home which provides accommodation, personal care and nursing care for people aged 65 and over. Five of the 48 beds were allocated and funded by the local Clinical Commissioning Group to support people to return home after a hospital admission. The accommodation is provided in a single building, arranged over two floors. There is a communal lounge and dining area on each floor, a conservatory and a secure garden area. At the time of the inspection, 42 people were living at the home, some of whom were living with dementia.

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

People felt safe and were protected from the risk of harm by staff who understood their responsibilities to identify and report any signs of potential abuse. We found any concerns were taken seriously and investigated thoroughly to ensure lessons were learnt.

Risks associated with people’s care and support were managed safely. People received their prescribed medicines when needed and there were suitable arrangements in place in relation to the safe administration, recording and storage of medicines. There were enough, suitably recruited staff to meet people’s needs.

The registered manager and staff liaised closely with other health and social care professionals to ensure people received care that met their holistic needs. Staff received training and ongoing support to meet people’s individual needs. People were supported to have sufficient amounts to eat and drink to maintain good health.

Staff knew people well and always promoted their dignity and independence. There was a kind, caring and inclusive atmosphere. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People’s care and support plans reflected their needs and preferences and were regularly reviewed. People’s diversity was recognised and promoted by the staff and systems were in place to meet people’s communication needs. People had opportunities to take part in activities, attend social events and follow their religious beliefs. People and their families were well supported and staff provided compassionate and dignified, end of their life care.

The provider used management systems to identify and effectively manage risks to the quality of the service and drive continuous improvement. People and their relatives had no complaints but felt confident any issues raised would be resolved. There were systems in place to capture people’s views on how the service could be improved and these were acted on. Staff felt supported and valued by the management team.

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 (Published 3 December 2016).

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.

There was a registered manager at the home at the time of our inspection. 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 principles of the MCA 2005 had not always been followed. Checking relatives and representatives had the legal authority to make decisions on behalf of someone who lacked capacity had not always been completed. This meant that the service was not acting in accordance with the MCA to ensure that people’s legal and human rights were respected and upheld.

The service was safe as people were protected from harm by staff who knew what constituted abuse and understood their responsibilities to report incidents of suspected abuse.

There were plans in place to support staff to help people manage their needs and risk assessments in place to keep people safe.

Medicines were managed safely and were administered as prescribed.

There were enough staff to cater for people’s current needs and people did not have to wait for support. Staff had also been recruited safely to check they were suitable to work with the people who use the service.

People were supported to make choices where possible and staff supported people to do this.

Staff had sufficient training to support people in the home. Staff had supervisions and felt supported by the registered manager and management team.

People’s nutritional needs were met and they told us they liked the food and there was a selection of food people could choose from.

People had access to a range of health services in order to keep them healthy and the staff made appropriate referrals when it was necessary.

Staff were caring and knew people who lived there well. People, relatives and staff were able to build relationships and people were treated with dignity and respect. People’s privacy was respected.

Support plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed and both people and relatives were consulted about their care.

People had a choice of interests and hobbies they could be involved in, should they choose to.

There was a complaints policy available for people to access and people knew how to make a complaint and were confident their concerns would be dealt with.

Medicine and other audits were carried out regularly and action taken when an issue had been identified.

People, relatives and staff had confidence in the management team and found the registered manager approachable.

People who used the service were happy with the care and support they received and were kept safe. People felt that the staff who looked after them were kind, respectful and caring. One person told us, "The care is very good here, and the staff are all lovely." Families also felt their relatives were well cared for. One visitor said, "X could not be in a better place."

People were cared for by a staff team who had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs. The provider worked with other professionals, accessed other services and was responsive to people's needs.

Individual care and treatment was planned and reviewed regularly to ensure that care and support remained effective.

The service was well run and the manager was open and inclusive and people were encouraged to talk and make suggestions.

Some people who used the service had dementia related conditions and were not able to communicate effectively with us. To ensure they were receiving the support they needed we observed how staff interacted with them and the care practice in the home. People we spoke with and their relatives said, "We chose this home after it was recommended. We have been very happy with the care our relative receives". "I'm very happy here. I have everything I need".

We saw that people were usually included in making decisions and able make choices about the care they received. We saw the care records included information about how people needed to be supported and how risks had been assessed. People received the health care and treatment they needed.

Medication was stored securely and arrangements were in place in relation to obtaining and disposing medicines. However medication was not always administered as prescribed or recorded appropriately. This placed people at risk of harm.

Staffing levels were usually sufficient to meet people's needs and staff received the training they needed to support people.

Complaints processes were in place. People and relatives we spoke with confirmed that they knew how to make a complaint.