Parker House Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Governance systems in place required further development to ensure the quality and safety of the service was monitored effectively. The registered manager had oversight of the service, however systems in place required further work to ensure risks and areas for improvement were highlighted and any action taken in a timely manner. The registered manager was aware of the regulatory requirements and submitted notifications as required. There was an open culture at Parker House and staff morale was high. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The registered manager and staff displayed a committed attitude to people. All of the staff told us the home was a nice place to work and had a family feel to it. Staff said, “I have worked here a long time, I feel respected and very well supported. My job is very rewarding, and I have good relationships with staff and the people who live here.” Staff and the registered manager told us there was an open and transparent culture. Staff were relaxed in the company of the registered manager. All staff we spoke with told us the registered manager led by example, was kind and committed and expected the same for all staff working at Parker House.

Processes in place meant there was an open culture. The registered manager had an open-door policy and was present in the home. This meant any staff who did not display the culture of Parker House could be monitored. Where staff did not work in line with the culture and policies of the home action was taken to address this. We observed an incident where a person’s safety was compromised due to staff’s practice. The registered manager took immediate action to protect the person from harm. The registered manager had an on-call system to ensure staff and people felt supported when they were not present at the home. An equality and diversity policy was in place which included all protected characteristics.

The registered manager was experienced and was mentoring the deputy manager to ensure the service was well led. Processes in place needed further development to ensure the quality of the service was monitored and maintained. The registered manager had multiple ideas of how to improve the auditing of the service and was in the process of developing these. The registered manager had increased meetings and checks of the service since last inspection but these needed formalising to ensure quality and safety could be monitored. The registered manager had sought support from another nursing home to monitor the nursing aspect of care and support.

The registered manager knew people and their needs. Staff spoke highly of the registered manager and supporting team and felt confident in their leadership. A staff member said, “The management team is approachable, treat all matters with confidentiality. The management team listens to issues raised by staff – they value our input and will action any changes.” The registered manager told us they had made lots of changes since our last inspection and were committed to improving the quality of the service. The registered manager recognised the impact on staff following changes and visits from multiple professionals and was supporting the wider staff team to ensure all staff felt confident in their job roles.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff told us there had been a number of changes since our last inspection but felt this was positive for both staff and people using the service. Staff felt supported by the registered manager and told us they would act on any concerns to protect people using the service. The registered manager was aware of their regulatory requirements and responsibility under the duty of candour. Duty of candour is a professional responsibility to be honest with people when things go wrong. The registered manager was open and honest throughout the assessment process. The registered manager displayed a positive attitude to the assessment process and was responsive to feedback. We received further information from the registered manager following our assessment detailing what action they had taken following our feedback.

Governance systems in place needed further development to ensure they were effective. Audits in place needed further detail to ensure action was taken. For example, a falls audit had been completed but this needed further work as it was a list of falls rather than detailing any themes or trends. Health and safety audits were completed but did not always identify areas for improvement. For example, the issues relating to a bedroom as detailed in the Safe section of this report had not been highlighted. Some audits such as mattress audits had been implemented and completed. The registered manager told us they were rolling out new audits to ensure the quality of the service was monitored. Feedback from partners such as the local authority were shared with staff during team meetings with what action was needed from staff to ensure the quality and safety of care improved. The provider had policies in place to ensure staff knew how to perform their duties in line with guidance, legislation, and the providers own ways of working. Emergency contingency plans were in place to ensure staff had guidance in the event of an emergency.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.