We conducted this inspection to establish the following about Park House: Was the service safe? Was it effective? Was it caring? Was it responsive and was it well-led?Below is a summary of what we found. This summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, the staff supporting them, people's relatives and from reviewing records.
Is the service safe?
People were very satisfied with how their support and care needs were being met. There was a well established system of risk assessment in place to support people's needs. No-one we spoke with living in the home had experienced feeling unsafe or unsure. Having regular staff added to this sense of security and safety.
We found staff were trained and supported to safely do their job. The provider managed a rolling programme of training and staff could also ask for additional training if required.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] which applies to care services. No applications have needed to be submitted. Adequate policies and procedures were in place relating to DoLS. Staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.
We found the home was well maintained and clean. This helped reduce the risk of injury or harm.
We reviewed staff rotas and found that there were sufficient staff on duty during the day and night to help keep people safe and free from harm.
People were provided with safe and appropriate support and care by a sufficient number of staff. People who used the service said that they had confidence in the capabilities of members of staff.
Is the service effective?
Park House demonstrated that it took great care to ensure the care and wellbeing of the people who used the service. This was shown in individual care plans, continuing risk assessments and daily records. Where it had been possible, we saw evidence of people being involved in decisions about their care and that their needs and wishes were known. We saw that members of staff actively consult people about their care and effectively carried out people's stated wishes.
We noted that other healthcare professionals worked with the home to ensure continuity of care where necessary.
People who used the service were satisfied with how they were actively consulted about their support, care and treatment.
Is the service caring?
People told us that they were very satisfied with the standard and quality of their support and care. By observing staff we found them to be kind, considerate and respectful towards people living in the home.
We noted that people were supported respectfully and courteously. We also noted that people were regularly spoken with in a polite manner by staff. Smiles and words of comfort were offered and interactions seen to be understood. Care and support provided was individual and informative.
Staff were aware of people's preferences, interests and needs.
Is the service responsive?
We saw that the home responded to people on an individual basis. People's likes/dislikes were acted on and we saw that every effort was made to put the interests and wellbeing of the individual first. One person we spoke with said 'I told them I wanted to get my hair done today. They arranged for the hairdresser to come in. That's nice, isn't it."
We noted that whilst staff were busy during the inspection that they still took time out to re-assure people, interact with them and generally engage with them.
Food was home cooked, could be eaten in private or in the dining room. People were free to choose where they ate.
Park House had a full and varied programme of activities for people to take part in, should they wish to.
We saw that people's individual care and treatment needs were assessed and planned for. Their individual choices and preferences regarding their support and care were valued. In addition, there was an effective system in place to respond to people's complaints, should it be needed.
Is the service well led?
The quality assurance system in place was robust. Staff said that they felt supported and trained to safely do their job.
We found that people's personal care records, and other records kept in the home, were accurate, safe and filed appropriately and securely.
Members of staff and people who used the service were provided with both formal and informal opportunities to share their views about the standard and quality of the service provision, and these were acted on, where needed.
The service was regularly audited and reviewed by the provider and prompt action taken if shortfalls were identified.
If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.