Archived: Parkwood

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

We spoke with eight people who received a service and they told us that they felt safe. One person told us, 'My family love me being here. They know that I am safe'. People also said that they lived independent lives but had support if and when they needed it. They told us that staff met their needs in ways that they preferred. They also said that staff were kind and friendly. We spoke with representatives of two people who received a service. Everyone we spoke with told us that they thought staff were well trained and knew how to do their job well. People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were respected at all times.

We saw that safeguarding procedures were in place and staff knew their responsibilities in relation to protecting vulnerable people.

We saw that risks to people's safety and welfare were assessed and when necessary actions were taken to reduce risks. Staff gave us examples of how risks were managed within people's own homes. People were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.

Is the service effective?

We saw how the service at Parkwood was developed around the needs of the people they supported. They listened to people's ideas and suggestions and made changes accordingly. For example they changed the timings of some people's calls to accommodate their prior engagements.

People's health and care needs were assessed and actions were taken to ensure that those needs were met. They worked with outside health and social care professionals as required.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with eight people who were supported by the service. They told us, 'The staff are lovely. They are all very kind'. People who received a service told us that staff had the skills and experience to meet their needs effectively. Some people did not need much support however they valued the fact that staff were on hand should they need them.

We looked at care plans and saw that people's preferences, interests, aspirations and needs had been recorded. People told us that care and support had been provided in accordance with their wishes.

Is the service responsive?

We saw how the registered manager had sought the views and experiences of the people who received a service. They gave us examples of how people's needs had changed and they had responded accordingly. People who received a service told us that if they needed to change the time of their calls they could do so. One person told us that they would like to alter the time of a call and the management team looked at how this could be achieved with the staff available.

Records showed how the provider worked with other agencies and services to make sure people received consistent care.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. People who spoke with us said that they would feel confident to contact the registered manager about anything. The registered manager told us that they would make sure that the complaints procedure was regularly shared with people to remind them of the process.

There was a box at reception for people to write down questions about the service. We also saw how feedback from the quality assurance questionnaire had been collated. The registered manager told us that an action plan would now be developed to address any areas where improvements could be made.

We saw how the provider had taken steps to make improvements following a quality monitoring visit from the local authority. Changes had had a positive impact upon people who received a service.

Is the service well-led?

We saw how the registered manager did regular reviews and audits. They told us that they had effective monitoring tools that reassured them that they provided a good service. The manager also told us how the service provider worked with them to monitor and assess the quality of the service.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. This helped to ensure that people received an appropriate service at all times. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager and their senior team. They told us that support and training took place regularly.

Everyone we spoke to told us they were aware that they had a care plan and also confirmed that any changes in their care had been discussed with them. They said that staff were 'very nice', and 'generally friendly and approachable'. One person who used the service said they were confident their needs 'were being met well.' People we spoke to said they were involved in their care reviews and that senior staff checked out that they remained happy with their care on a regular basis.

We found that the management of medicines by the service had improved and people were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

We were told that the food in the main restaurant was 'very good' and there was a 'good choice'.

People spoken to told us that there were tenant meetings held regularly where they could raise any issues they wished. These were held jointly by Accord housing and the Wrekin Housing Trust on a quarterly basis

A pharmacist inspector visited the office in January 2013, spoke with two managers and senior staff. We were told that there were 10 people who had support with medicines. We looked at the care and medication records of five of these people and spoke with three individuals. We looked at a sample of audits of the medication system.

We found some improvements made to the management of prescribed medicines. However further improvements were required to ensure that people's health and welfare was protected against the risks associated with medicines.

People were happy with the reliable and flexible care and support provided which respected their dignity, diversity and independence. One person said 'the staff are brilliant and come when I need them.'

We found that the medication system did not protect people's health and welfare, as the provider's policy and procedure was not followed. We were told of some intended action to improve the system, oversight and staff practice.

Staff were polite and friendly and worked well as a team. They felt well supported and had opportunity for professional development. Systems in place were used to keep people safe and to learn from safeguarding investigations with other agencies.

People had confidence to raise requests or concerns with staff or the manager. A misunderstanding about a person's complaint was looked into after our visit.