Parkview Home

Updated 23 January 2019

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 comprehensive inspection took place on 6 December 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider 24 hours’ notice of the inspection.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector. Prior to this inspection, we reviewed information we held about the service such as notifications and the information the provider had told us in their provider information return. Notifications are events that happen in the service the provider is required to tell us about. We also considered the last inspection report and information that had been sent to us by other agencies. We contacted commissioners who had a contract with the service.

During the inspection, we met three people who used the service and had brief conversations with them for their views about the service they received. We spoke with the provider, the registered manager and three care staff.

We looked at the care records of two people who used the service. The management of medicines, staff training records, staff files, as well as a range of records relating to the running of the service. This included audits and checks, the management of fire risks, policies and procedures, complaints and meeting records.

Updated 23 January 2019

The inspection took place on 6 December 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider 24 hours’ notice of the inspection as some people who used the service could be anxious about visitors.

Parkview Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service accommodates eight people who are living with learning disabilities and / or a diagnosis of mental ill health. At the time of our inspection there were eight people living in the home.

At our last inspection on 13 January 2016 we rated the service ‘good.’ At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of ‘good’ overall. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring which demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People continued to receive a safe service. Medicine administration records were completed by staff when they had administered the medicines safely. Risks associated with people’s needs had been assessed and measures were in place to reduce these. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and safe recruitment procedures for staff were in place. Accidents and incidents were monitored to identify any trends and measures were put in place to reduce the likelihood of these happening again.

The service remained effective. Staff received the training and support they required including specialist training to meet people’s individual needs. People were supported with their nutritional needs. The staff worked well with external health care professionals. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) were usually followed.

People received care from staff who were kind, compassionate and treated them with dignity. They were comfortable in the presence of staff and the registered manager. Staff had developed positive relationships with the people they supported, they understood people’s needs, preferences, and what was important to them. Staff knew how to support people when they were distressed and made sure emotional support was provided. People’s independence was promoted.

People continued to receive a responsive service. Their needs were assessed and their support was planned with them and or their relative where required. Care plans were not always reflective of people’s current needs. However, any changes were recorded through reviews and people received care which met their needs. Staff knew and understood people’s needs well. People received opportunities to pursue their interests and hobbies, and social activities were offered. There was a complaints procedure available if this was needed.

The service remained well-led. The monitoring of service provision was effective because shortfalls had been identified and resolved. There was an open and transparent and person-centred culture with good leadership. People and their relatives were asked to share their feedback about the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.