Archived: New Park House

Updated 12 June 2018

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

This inspection took place on 11 May 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team comprised of two inspectors.

We looked at information we held about the service including statutory notifications submitted. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We also asked commissioners if they had any information they wanted to share with us about the service.

We spoke with one person who used the service and one visiting relative. We also spoke with three care staff and two senior staff. We spoke with the registered manager and one of the directors of the company. 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 reviewed the care plans of five people and other care records (such as medicine records) for people who used the service. We also looked at management records such as quality audits. We looked at recruitment files and training records for members of staff too.

Updated 12 June 2018

This inspection took place on 11 May 2018 and was unannounced. At our previous inspection in January 2018 we still had some concerns about the safety and welfare of people who used the service and we found four continued breaches of The Health and Social Care Act Regulations (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The service remained in special measures. At this inspection we found that the provider had made improvements throughout and there were no breaches of regulations.

No key question is rated as inadequate and the service is therefore no longer in special measures.

New Park House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

New Park House can accommodate 95 people in three units. At the time of the inspection 21 people were using the service, some of whom were living with dementia. Only two of the three units were in use with plans to move into just one unit.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.’

We could not improve the rating of well-led from requires improvement because to do so requires consistent good practice over time. We will check this during our next planned comprehensive inspection.

Many improvements had been made in the monitoring of the quality of the service however these checks had not always identified when the content and quality of information available to staff required improving.

Notifications were generally submitted as required by the regulations however one incident had not been notified to us, which had been referred to the local safeguarding authority.

People did not always have plans in place to ensure they had their future wishes met at the end of their life.

Further detail was needed to ensure people could effectively communicate if they were not always able to verbally make their needs known.

People were protected from abuse by staff who understood their responsibilities and could recognise different types of abuse.

Risks were assessed and planned for and we saw staff following plans in place to help keep people safe.

People were receiving their medicines as prescribed and robust systems were in place to help identify errors and take appropriate action.

There was a sufficient amount of suitably recruited staff so people did not have to wait long for support. Staff had appropriate training to support people effectively.

Infection control measures were in place to help protect people’s health and wellbeing.

Lessons were being learned as action was taken when concerns were identified to reduce the likelihood of them occurring again.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were being followed. People had their capacity assessed in relation to specific decisions and appropriate best interest decisions were recorded.

People had access to other health professionals and referrals for support were made when someone’s health needs had changed and guidance was followed.

People enjoyed the food and there was a choice. Those with a specialist diet were catered for appropriately.

The building was suitably adapted and people had access to equipment to assist them when needed.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and we saw caring interactions between staff and people.

People and relatives were involved in decisions about their care where possible.

People had the opportunity to partake in a range of activities and there were further plans to enhance the activities available to people.

Complaints were recorded, investigated and responded to appropriately.

People, relatives and staff felt they could feedback and contribute to the improvement of the home. Meetings were held to encourage feedback.

An action plan was in place to try to ensure continuous improvement and there were more plans to link with organisations to improve the service and quality of care.