We carried out a review of the data available to us about Parkvale on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Parkvale, you can give feedback on this service.
Parkvale is a residential care home providing personal care for up to a maximum of seven people, some of whom have a learning disability and/or a mental health condition. At the time of inspection there were seven people in receipt of care.
We found the following examples of good practice:
• All visitors had to undergo a temperature check and answer a range of relevant questions before entry. There were ample PPE, handwashing facilities and signage.
• Staff had set up one room as an exercise space with an exercise bike and weights, so that people who missed going to the gym during lockdown could still exercise.
• The registered manager demonstrated a sound understanding of sometimes changing national guidance and worked closely with external agencies to help protect people who used the service.
• The service had not used agency staff and ensured people received a continuity of care. Individualised risk assessments were in place to help staff and people adhere to social distancing and other government guidance.
Parkvale is a residential care home providing personal care for up to a maximum of seven people, some of whom have a learning disability and/or a mental health condition. At the time of inspection there were seven people in receipt of care.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and were actively engaged in the local community, including attending local colleges and employment opportunities. Staff supported people to follow their own interests and there was a full range of activities available for people to pursue.
People were positive about the support they received from staff. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.
People’s care plans were detailed and very individualised to reflect the level of support required. People were involved with their care planning and had regular reviews of their support needs.
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.
Medicines were managed safely, and risk assessments were in place to keep people safe. The premises were safe for people living at the home. Staff followed best practice guidance and worked closely with other agencies to make sure people had continuous care.
Staff continued to receive regular training and were recruited safely. New staff received an induction which prepared them for their role. Staffing levels were appropriate to meet the needs of people.
The registered manager and provider continued to monitor the effectiveness of the service through robust quality and assurance systems. These systems allowed the provider to address issues, develop action plans and improve the quality of care provided to people.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills, accessing the local community and become more independent.
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 02 March 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor the service through information we receive from the service, provider, the public and partnership agencies. We will re-visit the service in line with our inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At this inspection we found that the provider had made improvements and the service was now meeting the regulations.
Parkvale provides residential care for up to seven gentlemen with learning disabilities and/or mental health issues. It is situated in a residential area within easy access of local amenities. At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the service, with a further two people due to move in within a few weeks.
The service had 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.
People told us they felt safe living at the home. Relatives told us they were confident their family member lived in a safe environment.
People lived in a clean and homely environment, with their bedrooms tailored to meet their own likes and dislikes.
People received their medicines appropriately. Staff at the service were trained to administer medicines to people safely and securely.
Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures. They also knew how to report any concerns they had and confirmed they would do this if they suspected any harm or abuse had occurred.
Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operations of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and to report on what we find. MCA is a law that protects and supports people who do not have the ability to make their own decisions and to ensure decisions are made in their ‘best interests’. It also ensures unlawful restrictions are not placed on people in care homes and hospitals. In England, the local authority authorises applications to deprive people of their liberty. We found the provider was complying with their legal requirements in respect of this act.
Relatives and staff all told us they felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. The registered manager monitored staffing levels to ensure enough trained staff were available at all times. The provider had systems in place for the safe recruitment of staff, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. The registered manager had a programme of staff training, supervision and appraisal in place and monitored this to ensure all staff were kept up to date with any training needs and support.
Maintenance work was completed as required and the provider had emergency procedures in place for staff to follow.
People told us they enjoyed the food prepared at the service. We found people received a range of nutritious meals and refreshments throughout the day and were able to make their own if they were able of doing so.
People were respected and treated with dignity and kindness. People and their relatives we spoke with highlighted the quality of care provided by staff at the home. One person told us, “Staff are canny [nice], they look after me.”
People were treated as individuals and their care needs were monitored so any changes were identified and procedures put in place to address that change. People’s records were regularly reviewed and discussed with the person, and their relatives where possible. Best interest decisions had been made where necessary.
People were involved in a range of activities outside of the service and chose what they wanted to participate in, including holidays.
Information on how to make a complaint was available, although there had been no complaints since the last inspection.
People were regularly asked to contribute their views on the service and about the care they had received.
The staff, registered manager and the quality assurance team monitored the quality of the service through a variety of audits and checks within the service. When an issue had been identified the registered manager had put measures in place to deal with the issue.
This unannounced inspection took place on 20 October 2015 followed by an announced visit on the 21 October 2015. The previous inspection which was undertaken in October 2014 found no breaches of the regulations in force at the time.
Parkvale provides residential care for up to seven people with learning disabilities and/or mental health issues. At the time of our inspection there were seven people living at the service.
The service had 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.
We found some shortfalls in the maintenance of the property mainly in connection with the decoration of the service.
Staff had not protected people from harm by ensuring robust infection control procedures were followed. We found people were not supported to keep their bedrooms clean.
Staff administered people’s medicines proficiently. They had received suitable training to ensure they were able to do this safely. However, we found some shortfalls in the safe management of medicines.
We spoke to all of the people living at the service and all that were asked, said they felt safe.
Staff had an awareness of safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if they suspected any form of abuse occurring. One staff member said, “I have never had to report anything, but would if I had to.”
Accidents and incidents that occurred were recorded and risk assessments completed to minimise the levels of risk to people living at the service. The provider had emergency procedures in place for staff to follow should they find a situation where they needed additional support and information or advice.
Checks had been completed to ensure that the building and the equipment within it was safe to use, including electrical and fire safety equipment.
Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operations of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and to report on what we find. MCA is a law that protects and supports people who do not have the ability to make their own decisions and to ensure decisions are made in their ‘best interests’. It also ensures unlawful restrictions are not placed on people in care homes and hospitals. In England, the local authority authorises applications to deprive people of their liberty. We found the registered persons were complying with their legal requirements.
People told us, and their care records confirmed, that they had access to healthcare professionals should the need arise. People had visited GP’s, physiotherapists and dentists for example. One person had been referred to a consultant for onward treatment which meant their condition was monitored and appropriately managed.
The service required staff to be available to support people 24 hours every day. We asked people if they thought there was enough staff. They told us they thought there was. One relative said, “They [staff] do what is needed, I think there is enough.” The provider had a system in place to ensure that suitably skilled and appropriate staff were recruited into the service.
Supervision was completed regularly and staff received annual appraisals from their line manager.
The needs of people had been thoroughly assessed and staff regularly completed reviews with them to ensure their care plans remained relevant. People told us they were fully involved in the care planning process. People told us they all had a key worker who helped them with any issues and were there to support them and give some consistency in their lives.
People told us the food was good and they enjoyed what they had to eat and drink. They said they had a wide variety of food, including some food from takeaways if they so wished. We observed meals being prepared in the kitchen, and found it was done with reference to food hygiene procedures. We observed people helping in the preparation of some of the meals.
People were respected and treated with dignity. Staff were considerate and encouraging when providing care and support to people. They supported people to express their views and listened and communicated well with people. It was apparent people got on well with their care workers.
Care plans were in place to guide staff as to how care should be provided and how best to support individuals in their care.
People were independent in the variety of activities they chose to be involved in on a day to day basis. One person chose to fish, while another chose to be involved with football.
People understood how to make a complaint or raise any concerns about their care. The registered manager had checked to make sure people understood how to do this. Documents about making a complaint were available to people who used the service.
People were asked their views on the service and about their care, although this information was not always analysed by the provider, as was the case with recent surveys completed.
The registered manager completed a number of audits and checks but there was little evidence of them being monitored by the provider and we found no appropriate infection control audit being used. Records were limited of the quality assurance visits carried out by the provider’s representative.
We found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These related to premises, medicines and good governance. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
This inspection took place on 30 and 31 October 2014. A previous inspection undertaken on 9 November 2013 found there were no breaches of legal requirements.
Parkvale is registered to provide accommodation for up to seven men who have a learning disability or mental health issues. People come to the service from a hospital environment where they have been cared for under the Mental Health Act 2003. At the time of the inspection there were seven people using the service.
The home had a registered manager in place. 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.
We saw there were procedures in place to keep people safe and staff understood what action to take if abuse was suspected. Staff had a good knowledge of how to identify and report abuse and they demonstrated a good knowledge of whistleblowing procedures. There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs and staff were suitably trained and experienced for their role. They told us the quality of their training was good. There were recruitment procedures in place and suitable checks were completed before staff started working at the service. The service had a system in place that managed people’s medicines safely.
People were happy with the food provided by the service. We saw people had a choice of what they wanted to eat. People could be involved in the preparation and cooking of their food if they wished. We saw that parts of the home had been renovated including, the kitchen and dining room. However, other parts of the home, such as the communal lounge, were still in need of decoration. The provider told us there was an on-going plan to decorate and update the home in 2015.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. DoLS are part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They aim to make sure that people are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. The registered manager was aware of the Supreme Court judgement which had redefined the definition regarding what constituted a deprivation of liberty. We saw that mental capacity assessments were in place for each person and best interests meetings were held to ensure that all actions taken were in line with legislation.
Staff knew people well and had a good understanding of their needs. They were respectful to people and were patient when supporting them. We saw staff enabled people to make decisions for themselves whenever possible. People’s wellbeing was monitored and people were supported to access support from healthcare professionals. For example, general practitioners.
People who used the service had an individual activities plan based on their goals. They chose what activities they wished to engage in and when they liked to do them. People were supported to access the local community. There was a complaints procedure in place and people were provided with a copy in case they had any concerns about the service.
The registered manager monitored the quality of care. Surveys were carried out annually for people who lived at the service. Audits were also carried out for areas such as health and safety, infection control and fire safety. We saw staff views were obtained during individual one to one supervisions and staff meetings.
We found the registered provider did not always respond to requests for repairs at the service or the purchase of equipment in a timely manner.
Meetings were held with people who used the service however they were not a regular occurrence. Records were well maintained and secure. However, care plans were hand written which meant whenever they were updated sections of the care plans had to be changed which was time consuming for staff and less efficient.
People told us their consent was gained prior to care being delivered and we found that staff acted in accordance with their wishes.
We found that people's care and support needs were appropriately assessed and their care was planned. They received care safely, and to an appropriate standard.
People were cared for in a clean and hygienic environment and we found the provider had appropriate measures in place to monitor and manage infection control.
There were enough suitably skilled and qualified staff on duty to meet people's needs safely and appropriately.
We saw the provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place, which people had access to.
At this inspection we found that people were treated with dignity and respect. People told us previous problems with staff attitudes and behaviours had been resolved and as a result there had been a positive impact on their lifestyles. One person said, "We have new staff now, things are a lot, lot better." Another person said, "I cannot thank you enough. All of the problems that we had have now been resolved. The house is a lot happier environment. It makes us happier. We just ask if we want to go out now and there are no 'ifs' or 'buts', they (staff) take us out."
We found the provider had taken action since our last inspection to ensure that people were treated with dignity and respect and improvements had been made.