Archived: Park Hall

Updated 28 March 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

This inspection was carried out by an adult social care inspector and an inspection manager.

Service and service type:

Park Hill is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

This inspection was carried out on 13 February 2019 and was unannounced.

What we did:

As part of planning the inspection we looked at information the provider had sent us in their Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make. We looked at information we held about the service as part of our ingoing monitoring; including any statutory notifications sent to us by the provider about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We also spoke with the local authority to gain their perspective of the home.

During the inspection we spoke with 12 people who were living at the home, six relatives of people, five members of staff including the deputy manager and a visiting GP. As some people were unable to give us their views we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We also looked at records at the home which included records relating to recruitment of two staff members and support, audits and quality assurance reports and the care plans for six people.

Updated 28 March 2019

About the service: Park Hill is a residential care home that was registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 60 people aged 65 and over. At the time of the inspection there were 59 people living at the home.

People’s experience of using this service:

People and their relatives told us they thought the home was safe. The environment was clean and the building was safe and well maintained. Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. It was clear that people had positive relationships with staff members. People told us that staff treated them well.

New staff had been safely recruited and received appropriate training in safeguarding vulnerable adults. This helped ensure people were safe. Staff had also received other training and ongoing support to enable them to be effective in their role. All staff had regular access to their line manager to discuss any issues or concerns. One staff member told us, “It’s a nice place to work.” We saw that there were enough staff available to meet people’s needs in a safe and timely manner. The staff rota was arranged so that there was enough staff available during busier times of the day.

Each person had an individualised assessment of their needs when they came to live at the home. Their needs in relation to equality and diversity were considered during the assessment process. Each person had a person centred and individualised care plan which provided guidance for staff on people’s needs, wishes and preferences. We saw that these were put together in partnership with people and their families and they were regularly reviewed. People’s consent was sought in day to day decisions and formally in more serious decisions. Each person’s file also contained appropriate risk assessments. These helped ensure that people received appropriate care and that risks were reduced. We saw that people’s medication was administered safely. The service had a positive relationship with the local GP surgery and they worked together to ensure people’s needs were met.

Lots of activities were provided in the home. There was a book exchange, visiting entertainers, exercise classes, a cinema room, art and crafts, puzzles, there was also a covered atrium with a foosball table. There was a sensory room with water beds which people could use to help them relax. One person told us, “There is plenty to do. I never get bored.” People were supported to celebrate special occasions the way they wanted to. One person had been supported to arrange an Elvis tribute act to celebrate their birthday.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet. They praised the food available at the home. Comments included; “The food is brilliant.” And, “I look forward to mealtimes.” The food looked, smelt and tasted appetising. Drinks and snacks were available throughout the day. One person told us, “There is always a brew on.” We saw that people’s weights were closely monitored and staff intervened early if people started to lose weight.

There was a positive and caring culture at the home. People told us they felt well cared for and they appeared relaxed and comfortable. Staff told us they felt listened to and that the registered manager and provider were approachable. The service was well led and had a culture of learning and continuous improvement. The manager took appropriate action to help ensure that people were safe. They responded to and took appropriate action regarding any safeguarding concerns and accidents and incidents that happened at the home.

People were consulted with and throughout the inspection we saw lots of examples of people being encouraged to make choices for themselves about how they spent their time and other day to day choices. The service also listened to people and responded positively to their concerns. There were also regular residents and relative’s meetings and we saw that the staff were open to suggestions during other times.

Rating at last inspection: Good – August 2016

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up: Ongoing monitoring.