Archived: Park View Care Home

During our last inspection on 28 January 2015 the service was rated Good overall, with all the key questions rated as good, apart from responsive, which was rated as requires improvement. This was because we found that the care records provided inconsistent information about individual choices, aspirations and wishes and that people’s daily logs were not always personalised and were focused on the tasks undertaken. We also found that people nursed in bed or who chose to remain in their bedrooms were at risk of social isolation through the lack of meaningful stimulation and engagement.

During this inspection we found that the service had taken appropriate action to enable the responsive key question to be rated as good. We also found that all the other key questions, that had been rated good, remained good. Meaning that we found the service remained Good.

There was a registered manager at the service, they had been registered at this service since February 2016 and had previous experience as a registered manager.

The people who lived in the service told us that they felt safe and well cared for. There were systems in place which provided guidance for care workers on how to safeguard the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe.

There were processes in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. These included risk assessments which identified how the risks to people were minimised. There were sufficient numbers of trained and well supported staff to keep people safe and to meet their needs. They were recruited using a robust recruitment process for employing staff appropriately to care for vulnerable people.

Processes and procedures were in place to receive, record, store and administer medicines safely. Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely.

Both the registered manager and the staff understood their obligations under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager knew how to make a referral if required. 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 support this practice.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. They were also supported to maintain good health and access healthcare services.

We saw many examples of positive and caring interactions between the staff and people living in the service. People were able to express their views and staff listened to what they said and took action to ensure their decisions were acted on. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity.

People received care that was personalised and responsive to their needs. The service listened to people’s experiences, concerns and complaints. Staff took steps to investigate complaints and to make any changes needed.

The registered manager was supported by the organisation and the staff they managed told us that the registered manager was open, supportive and had good management skills. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service offered people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

People told us that the staff were kind and helpful. One person remarked, 'If there is something on my mind, they (staff) know and they listen.' Another person told us, 'There is nothing bad about living here, if I need help they (staff) will be there'You tell them what you want for breakfast.' A third person remarked that they were, 'Doing really well here so I know my care is good.'

We spent time with people living with dementia observing the afternoon routines. We saw that staff were attentive and supported people to join in meaningful one to one and group activities which enhanced their wellbeing.

People told us they were offered a varied choice of nutritious meals and plenty of drinks. People were positive about the standard of the environment, which staff kept clean and well maintained.

We asked people if they would recommend the service to others. One person who lived in Park View Care Home replied, 'Definitely, It is one of the best ones I have been in.' Another person on respite care said, 'Food alright, not bad,' but nothing could beat their own home. A third person told us that the, 'Place is nice and the food is good.'

People praised the standard of the environment which included a cinema and beauty therapist room. One person told us, 'It doesn't make you feel like you're in a nursing home.' One person told us, 'I like living here.' One relative commented that it was, 'More like a hotel.' We observed that the hotel type environment did not offer people areas in the corridors to break up their walks by having items which they could touch and stimulate their senses.

People told us that the staff were friendly and kind and consulted them over their care needs. One person told us that they, 'Get all the care I need.' They told us that staff were respectful and listened to what they said.

We observed good interaction. Staff were attentive and asked people for their permission to assist them. We saw when one member of staff approached a person; the person looked up at them and smiled. They told us, 'I like living here.' We saw people taking part in one to one activities and group quizzes and bingo.

People told us that they liked the food. Two people told us an extra person to serve breakfast would be useful as some times people can be, 'Waiting quite a while.'

Relatives told us about the monthly meetings held, where they could express their views and be involved in supporting social events.