Archived: Parkhaven

Updated 1 February 2018

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Parkhaven is a ‘care home.’ People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, both of which we looked at during this inspection.

This inspection took place on 20 December 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector.

Before our unannounced inspection, we checked the information we held about Parkhaven. This included notifications the provider sent us about incidents that affect the health, safety and welfare of people who lived at the home. We also contacted other health and social care organisations such as the commissioning department at the local authority and Healthwatch Lancashire. Healthwatch Lancashire is an independent consumer champion for health and social care. This helped us to gain a balanced overview of what people experienced living at Parkhaven.

Furthermore, we looked at the Provider Information Return (PIR) the provider had sent us. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Additionally, we spoke with a range of individuals about this home. They included four people who lived at Parkhaven. We further discussed care with two members of the management team and three employees.

We observed care and support in communal areas and looked around the building to check environmental safety and cleanliness. This enabled us to determine if people received the care and support they needed in an appropriate environment.

We examined care records of two people who lived at the home. This process is called pathway tracking and enables us to judge how well Parkhaven understands and plans to meet people's care needs and manage any risks to people's health and wellbeing. We checked documents in relation to one staff member. We also looked at records about staff training and support, as well as those related to the management and safety of Parkhaven.

Updated 1 February 2018

Parkhaven delivers care and support for a maximum of five adults with a range of mental health problems. At the time of our inspection, four people lived at the home. Parkhaven is situated in a residential area of Blackpool close to the main park. The home has five single bedrooms on the upper floor, as well as a diner-kitchen and communal lounge.

At the last inspection on 05 October 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection, we found the service remained ‘Good’.

During this inspection visit, people we spoke with said they felt safe and comfortable living at the home. Where incidents and near misses had occurred, we found the management team looked at patterns and themes, as well as any potential lessons learnt. Parkhaven had a bright, fresh interior and we saw the environment was clean and tidy. A person who lived at the home told us, “Our home is always clean. The staff encourage us to do some of the cleaning, so we all do it together.”

People were protected from potential harm or injury because staff completed risk assessments to support them. When we discussed safeguarding principles with staff, they confirmed they had relevant training and demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities.

We found fully trained staff managed medicines safely and securely. For instance, recordkeeping followed national guidelines, such as countersigning handwritten records to confirm their accuracy. The management team completed regular audits and staff competency testing to retain quality and safety of people’s medicines.

Records we reviewed evidenced there were sufficient numbers and skill mixes of staff to meet each person’s requirements. People we spoke with said they found staff to be well trained and knowledgeable about their responsibilities. A person who lived at Parkhaven commented, “The staff are very experienced, no concerns there.”

All of those we spoke with said meals were of a good standard. They said alternatives were available if they did not like what was on the menu. One person commented, “The meals are fantastic.” We found care records contained assessments to reduce the risks of malnutrition and other associated hazards, such as swallowing difficulties.

We found evidence of involvement of people in all aspects of their care. Staff documented their hopes, preferences, concerns for the future and their current thoughts and beliefs. People told us Parkhaven had a supportive, close-knit community in which they all worked well together. One person commented, “I have no relatives. These (pointing to others at the home) are my family.”

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 discussed a recent death with people who lived at Parkhaven. They told us staff and the management team were highly supportive and enabled them to grieve and support each other. People said staff were consistently responsive to their needs. We saw care records were centred around the person’s expressed needs, preferences and ongoing requirements.

The registered manager conducted multiple audits to assess the quality of the service provided. For example, quarterly hand hygiene audits were completed to check staff and people who lived at Parkhaven followed good infection control standards. Everyone we spoke with told us they felt the management team were supportive and visible. One staff member commented, “[The registered manager and the provider] are the best managers I’ve ever worked for. They are very chilled, but they also manage us very well. I love it here because of that.”