Archived: Parkwood House

Updated 8 December 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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 13 October 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also looked at previous inspection reports and notifications about important events that had taken place at the service, which the provider is required to tell us by law.

Some people living at the service did not use verbal communication; instead they used a mixture of sounds, gestures and signs. We made observations of interactions between people and staff for people who were unable to tell us about their experiences. We contacted the relatives of the seven people using the service to gain their views and experiences.

We spoke with two people about their experience of the service. We spoke with two care staff, a senior support worker and the registered manager to gain their views. We asked four health and social care professionals for their views about the service.

We spent time looking at records, policies and procedures, complaint and incident and accident monitoring systems, internal audits and the quality assurance system. We looked at three people’s care files, six staff record files, the staff training programme, the staff rota and the communication systems.

Updated 8 December 2016

We previously carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 18 December 2015. Breaches of legal requirements were found. We told the provider to make improvements to become compliant with Regulation 9, 12, 13, 17 and 18. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made.

This inspection was carried out on 13 October 2016 and was unannounced. This was a comprehensive inspection and included an inspection of the previous breaches of legal requirements. The service provided accommodation and personal care for up to 13 adults with learning disabilities. There were 7 people living in the service when we inspected.

This service has been in Special Measures. Services that are in Special Measures are kept under review and inspected again and kept under review. We expect services to make significant improvements within this timeframe. During this inspection the service demonstrated to us that improvements have been made and is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is now out of Special Measures.

There was a registered manager in place when we inspected the service. 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. The registered manager and provider had made significant changes to the service since the last inspection and in particular to the way risk were managed to prevent harm to people. Incidents and accidents were also appropriately managed to reduce or prevent reoccurance.

People received a service that was safe and relative’s felt that their loved one was safe. Systems were in place to protect people from the potential risk of abuse. Staff had access to an up to date safeguarding adult’s policy. Staff had received training about protecting people from abuse and knew what action to take if they had any concerns. Accidents and incidents involving people had been recorded, assessed and reviewed. Immediate action was taken by the provider following a serious incident previously.

Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and recorded with measures put into place to manage any hazards identified. The premises had been maintained to ensure the safety of people. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and measures put into place to manage any hazards identified. The premises were maintained and checked to help ensure people’s safety. People’s safety in the event of an emergency had been assessed, recorded and reviewed.

People received support and assistance from enough staff to meet their assessed needs. There were enough staff on duty with the right skills to meet people’s needs. Staff had been trained to meet people’s needs. Recruitment practices were safe and checks were carried out to make sure staff were suitable to work with people who needed care and support.

People received their medicines safely and when they needed them. Policies and procedures were in place for the safe administration of medicines and staff had been trained to administer medicines safely. People were supported to remain as healthy as possible with the support of healthcare professionals.

Staff had received sufficient training to meet people’s needs including any specialist needs. New staff received an induction before starting to work at the service. Staff received support and guidance from the registered manager to fulfil their role in meeting people’s needs. Staff said they were encouraged to discuss ideas and suggestions they had to improve the service.

People’s needs had been assessed to identify the care they required. Care and support was planned with people and their relatives and reviewed to make sure people continued to have the support they needed. Detailed guidance was provided to staff about how to meet people’s needs including any specialist support needs. People were given food and drink that they enjoyed and had chosen. People were supported to maintain their nutrition and hydration. Healthcare professionals were involved if people were at risk of malnutrition or dehydration.

People participated in activities of their choice within the service and the local community. There were enough staff to support people to participate in the activities they chose with staff allocated to particular activities. People and their relatives were involved and asked for suggestions of ways the service could be improved, these were acted on. People and their relatives had access to a compliant policy and procedure. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided to people.

People’s capacity to consent had not always been assessed as per the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Some decisions had been made for people without their consent and without the principles of the Act being followed. Staff offered people choices and gained their consent prior to offering any support. Staff were kind and caring towards people and took appropriate action to maintains people’s privacy and dignity. We have made a recommendation about this.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided to people. External governance systems were now in place to ensure the service continued to maintain and improve the quality of the service. Records were not always stored safely and securely. We have made a recommendation about this.