Archived: Parkview Care Home

Updated 20 June 2017

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 22 and 23 September 2016 and was unannounced.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the home. This included the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally required to let us know about. We also viewed the recent inspection report from the local authority commissioners of the home.

The provider completed a provider information return (PIR) prior to the inspection. 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 spoke with five of the 19 people who used the service. We also spoke with the director, registered manager, two senior care workers and two care workers on a one to one basis. We observed how care workers interacted with people and looked at a range of care records which included the care records for four people, medicines records for 19 people and recruitment records for five care workers.

Updated 20 June 2017

This inspection took place on 22 and 23 September 2016 and was unannounced. We last inspected the home on 24 July 2014. The provider was meeting the requirements of the regulations we inspected against.

Parkview Care Home is registered to provide nursing care to older people. The home can accommodate up to 24 people. At the time of our inspection 19 people were living at the home.

The home had a registered manager. 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 provider had breached the regulations relating to person-centred care. Risk assessments had not been personalised to the needs of each person and some were out of date. Some care plans were not up to date and others lacked personalised information to ensure people received appropriate care.

Quality assurance systems were not effective in proactively identifying issues we found with care planning and risk assessments.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

The provider had not always followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. A decision to provide a specialist bed for one person lacking capacity had been made without a MCA assessment and best interest decision having been made first. We have made a recommendation about this.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were not in place or applied for all people who were unable to consent to their placement in the home. The registered manager advised us this was following advice from the local authority responsible for processing DoLS applications.

Care workers supported people to make as many of their own choices and decisions as possible.

People and care workers felt there were enough care workers on duty to meet people’s needs. Staffing levels were monitored and staffing levels had increased as a result of the most recent review of staffing levels.

People said they were happy with both their care and the care workers who provided it. They said care workers were kind and caring and treated them with respect.

Care workers demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding adults and whistle blowing, including how to report concerns. All of the care workers we spoke with said they would have no hesitation raising concerns to keep people safe.

Medicines records we viewed supported the safe administration of medicines. Medicines administration records (MARs) were accurate and medicines were stored securely.

Regular health and safety checks were carried out to help keep the home safe, such as checks of fire safety, water and the gas supply. Information was available about people’s care and support needs in an emergency situation.

Incidents and accident logs were kept which detailed investigations and action taken to help prevent accidents reoccurring.

Care workers told us they received good support. Records were available to show care workers had regular one to one supervisions and appraisals. Training records conformed essential training was up to date for care workers.

People were happy with the meals provided at the home. We observed during the lunch time there were not enough staff available in the dining room to provide support in a timely manner.

Care records showed people had regular input from external health professionals in line with their needs, such as GPs and community nurses.

People’s needs had been assessed and care plans developed. Some care records provided care workers with information about people’s preferences, such as their likes and dislikes.

Activities were available for people to participate in if they chose to, such as games, manicures and one to one time with care workers.

People knew how to complain but said they did not have any concerns about their care. Records showed previous complaints had been thoroughly investigated and resolved.

People said the registered manager was approachable and the home had a good atmosphere.

An individual daily record of the care people had received was not kept for people using the service.