Park View Care Home with Nursing

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. People told us they were well cared for, but we found the delivery of person-centred care could be improved, though people were supported to access appropriate treatment when needed. People were supported to express their views, access information and provide feedback, though feedback was not always analysed. Some improvements were needed to ensure peoples end of life care plans were adequately detailed.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We received mixed feedback around person centred care, people’s comments included, “Most of the staff know me well and understand my needs and requests. Some staff are not engaged with us as individuals they just see people who need their personal care dealt with.” And “The girls that are here all the time are great but some agency staff don't know us so can't be expected to understand us.”

Staff spoke about how they try to deliver person centred care. They provided examples of how they monitor people needs, one staff member said, “Food/fluid intake is recorded by carers on the handheld device. We print off their food/fluid intake chart at 2pm and highlight if fluid is low, and input food that hasn’t been done. We monitor weight weekly and monthly. Any changes are shared via the care plan.” When we asked how people and their relatives are involved in care planning, we was told, “By family meetings. We speak to family on resident of the day. We inform family of falls, or if someone is not well.”

During observations of Park View Care Home with Nursing, we witnessed people spending a lot of their time in communal areas, sometimes with little interaction from staff. When staff were interacting with people this was always in a kind and calm way.

People told us they were given choices, one person said, “The home tried to make the move here easy. It's not, but they did try and help me. The staff asked me about the things I liked to do and my favourite food.”

Throughout the inspection staff and management made reference to various organisations they made referrals to for support when needed.

Partners provided some mixed feedback on care provision, integration and continuity. Their comments included, “There has been a couple of times previously when I have visited that the home have been short staffed. I don’t know the reason for this but I assume agency would be used and this could cause issues re continuity of care if this happened regularly” and “Now that they have regular nurses yes, I see evidence of this (continuity) regularly.”

We found examples where referrals were made to ensure people received the right support and treatment.

People could access information and could express their views in numerous ways including at resident meetings. One family member told us, “I have all the information I need if I have to address any issues. We have been to a meeting already with other families and I feel that these meetings are very important to us and our loved ones.”

Staff spoke about how they promote people’s privacy, one staff member told us, “I don’t talk about people unless necessary. It’s a need-to-know basis.” Staff were also able to give an example of how they communicate with people who have difficulty in this area, one staff member said, “(We communicate with person) Through physical communication. (Person) moves in her chair if she wants her pad changed. She opens her mouth if she wants a drink.”

The service had various policies in place to support people who may need it. People’s information was protected using passwords on electronic devices and the manager’s office was locked as was the medicines room and nurses office when no one was in.

People told us they could provide feedback. One person said, “We have meetings sometimes to express our wishes. People come up with good ideas and the home will use them if appropriate.”

Staff told us how they would escalate any concerns that people may have to management to investigate.

People were able to raise concerns or feedback through various channels including meetings, a complaints process and through a QR code system that had been introduced. We reviewed complaints and found they were actioned and resolved, though sometimes outside of the timeframe outlined in the service’s complaints policy. Various policies were in place to support people sharing feedback, including a complaints policy. Some surveys had been completed by people. However, these had not been analysed and there was no proof any action had been taken from these. The manager told us they were soon sending out new surveys which would be analysed.

People felt they could access care and support when needed. One relative said, “I think my opinion on my dad’s health and well-being is valued. The staff try to work with me and my ideas about my dad’s care.”

Staff told us that at times people had to wait for their call bells to be answered and that the service use agency staff to increase/support staffing numbers when needed.

Partners provided some positive feedback about Equity in access. One professional said, “The manager has also been supportive with any emergency placements required to avoid unnecessary hospital admission.”

There was an on-call process in place which was covered by the manager and deputy manager so staff could access management in a case of an emergency. The service was accessible for people in wheelchairs as access through the front door was by a flat floor and the service had ramps and lifts in place to support accessibility in the home.

People felt they received the care they needed, one person said, “I am cared for very well by the staff in a way that is ok for me.”

Most staff told us they had no concerns about the service. Staff told us how people could raise concerns by a suggestion box or at resident meetings. The manger told us, "We have QR codes that staff, residents and relatives can access to raise concerns. I think this is anonymous" and "We are in the process of developing new staff surveys and resident surveys."

Meetings for/with residents and their relatives were taking place, which kept people up to date with any changes and allowed them to discuss any concerns.

People and their relatives who we spoke to did not specifically provide any information relating to this, but they suggested throughout our conversations that the management was approachable. Various thank you cards we reviewed seemed to suggest staff were supportive during difficult times.

Staff told us how they support families with difficult conversations by “Asking family if they have any plans or wishes in a quiet room.” Staff told us they completed end of life training.

We saw evidence that people had a DNACPR in place where it was their wish. We found people had end of life care plans in place, though these were not always as detailed as they could have been in relation to people’s specific wishes.