Archived: Park View

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 11 and 19 November 2014. On 11 November 2014 we met with the provider and on 19 November 2014 we met with people who used the service and the staff member supporting them.

The last inspection of Park View took place on 3 July 2013 when it was found to be meeting all the regulatory requirements. Park View is one of three small homes owned by the providers.

Park View is registered to provide accommodation for up to 6 people who have a learning disability and mental health needs and who require support with personal care. There were 6 people living at the home when we completed our inspection.

A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There were two registered managers for the home who share this role, one of whom was a registered provider.

On 11 November we spent time with both the providers or owners. We talked with the providers about their plans to make improvements to all three services that they were responsible for and looked at maintenance, recruitment and other records relating to the running of them.

We returned unannounced to the home on 19 November 2014 and spent time talking with five people who used the service and a member of staff, looked around parts of the home and at two people’s records with them.

We were made to feel welcome by both people who lived at the service and the staff supporting them throughout the inspection.

The relationships we saw between people who used the service and support workers were warm, frequent and friendly. The atmosphere was calm and relaxed. However people did tell us that in certain circumstances there could be tension between people. People told us that there had been an improvement in this situation recently.

People who used the service had the capacity to make decisions about what they did with their time. They chose which individual activities they wanted to be involved in and were able to take part in group activities if they wanted to, both in the home and in the community.

People who used the service had access to information about who they could contact if they had concerns that they had been harmed or were at risk of being harmed. We saw that safeguarding had been discussed with people at a resident’s meeting.

Overall medication was well managed; however a number of improvements were needed to ensure that a person’s medication record sheet matched the consultant’s direction in relation to a prescribed eye ointment. Also clear direction on the amounts of prescribed thickening agent to be added to drinks to prevent people choking was needed for staff to follow.

We saw that the home was comfortable, homely, clean and tidy. The provider was aware that the home appeared tired in parts and we were told that plans were in place to have a new boiler and kitchen and fitted and the downstairs bathroom refurbished.

The staff member we spoke with had a good understanding of people’s risks and preferences so that they could support people effectively.

We spent time looking at the care and support records with two people who used the service. They confirmed as far as they were able that the information about them was correct.

The staff member we spoke with had received a range of training to deliver effective care to people. They said the registered manager and the providers were very approachable and supportive should they need any assistance or guidance.

We saw that quality assurance questionnaires had been sent out to people living at the home in September 2014 asking for their views and opinions of the service. Some of the responses returned indicated that people did not feel safe at the home. However it was not clear what action had been taken to resolve the issues. Feedback from staff who worked at the home had been received.

Systems were in place to record and review complaints. People were encouraged to express their views about the service they received and discussion about how to make a complaint had been undertaken at recent resident’s meetings. No complaints had been received at the home.

The provider was aware that they did not have all the systems they needed in place to regularly monitor and audit the quality of care provided at Park View. The provider was working with a local quality assurance officer and good progress had been made in addressing the outstanding issues.