Parkhill Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

People were not always receiving care that was kind and compassionate, partially due to the lack of permanent staff. Some staff were kind and understood the needs of the people they were supporting but there was a high use of agency staff who lacked the knowledge on how to support people meaning that there were delays in support being provided, support that was not in line with people’s assessed needs and a focus on tasks rather than people.

This service scored 35 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were not always treated well by kind and compassionate staff. People’s experience was varied with some staff being kind and helpful. However, people raised concerns about the kindness of other staff, and we observed people were restricted in where they spent time, and at times were ignored or the reassurance need was not provided. Multiple examples of poor practice were observed including people being left in dirty clothing, call bells and requests for support not being given in a timely way and access to food and drinks not always being available, with it being placed out of reach or given to people when they were asleep.

Staff told us they felt some staff were good but that everyone was very busy and this made meeting people’s needs in a timely way difficult. Some staff raised concerns about agency staff and their engagement with people and their ability to effectively communicate and meet people’s needs.

Stakeholders told us that things were slowly starting to improve and that the staff were generally helpful when they visited the home. There were a handful of permanent staff who were referenced in a positive light. However, they continued to have concerns about the agency staff and their approach to supporting people.

We observed people were not always well treated or provided with the appropriate level of support. Staff interaction was task focused and neutral with the exception of a handful of staff, and time was not given to interact and support people to access hobbies and interests.

Some people were treated as individuals, with one person telling us, “The cook is very good, and if I don’t like what is on the menu because I am a fussy eater, I ask for a jacket potato and that’s what I get. She’s a good cook.” However, this was not the case for all people, particular those who had limited communication. Some staff did not know people’s names or their needs and treated everyone the same and did not understand them and what they wanted. Bedrooms were not always personalised and made homely and staff often used people’s bedrooms for the storage of equipment such as hoist and wheelchair.

Some staff had a good understand of people and were able to explain how they supported people. Other staff had less knowledge and understanding in this area. Leaders were working with staff and external stakeholders to improve the quality of care people received.

People were not clearly encouraged to be independent and were not receiving person centred care in line with their assessed needs. We observed numerous examples of poor practice or care delivered that was not in line with people needs inclduing around continence care and nutrition and hydration needs. Staff did not effectively promote choice with people.

The provider did not have systems which were effective in ensuring people received individualised care. Care plans lacked any personal detail to ensure people got personalised care, and these were not being reviewed and updated. There was no recent evidence of checks in this area from the provider.

People were not supported to remain independent and choice was not always given or respected. For example, call bells were not always in place or accessible to people when in their bedroom and food and drink was not always appropriately placed to ensure people could support themselves, especially for those with strength and coordination or visual needs. People were not always able to get up when they wanted.

Some staff understood the important of prompting independence and choice but other staff had limited understanding.

We observed staff did not encourage people to eat well and people were woken up to have a drink or food rather than providing it at a time when they were awake. Staff did not always respond to people and provide choice that was meaningful. We observed where people were offered choice for example at lunch time, adaptations such as visual menus were not in place to support people to making meaningful choices and these choices were not always respected. We also observed people who walked with purpose were stopped from moving within the home and examples where the agreed care plan was not being followed.

Care plans did not evidence how independence and choice was promoted and daily records did not evidence this was done. Multiple shortfalls in staff practice were observed. There was a lack of oversight of this from the provider and limited evidence that appropriate checks were completed to ensure any action and improvements were implemented and embedded.

Some people told us staff did not always come when needed and multiple examples where there were delays in people’s needs being met were observed and identified in people’s records and feedback, including around continence and personal care and nutritional care and support. People did not have access to drinks all the time and were very thirsty in the morning of the first day. People were often left in bedrooms or in bed although it was not evident this was their preference in any care records.

Staff told it was difficult at times to respond to people’s immediate needs.

People’s needs were not effectively responded to. We observed people were not taken to the toilet, were not encouraged to eat and drink, or reassured when supported with moving and handling when this was needed.

Staff generally told us they felt supported in their role. Senior managers were working to support the team to ensure people’s needs were met and enable staff to access training relevant to the role they were working in.

Suitable policies were in place but it was not evident that staff were having regular supervision and support or opportunities to get involved in service development. The policies in place were not always being applied in practice and there was a lack of oversight form the provider in the absence of a home manager.