Archived: Parklands - Care Home

Parklands care home provides residential care for up to 30 older people and people who may have a dementia related condition. It is situated in the village of Rawcliffe, five miles from the town of Goole, in the East Riding of Yorkshire.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection, there was a manager in post. However, they were not currently registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

Services that provide health and social care to people are required to inform the CQC of important events that happen in the service. Although routine notifications were being made, we found one example where the manager had failed to notify the CQC of a significant event. We made a recommendation about this in the report.

There were systems in place to manage people’s comments and complaints and there were opportunities to seek feedback from people and their relatives about the service provided. However, we found that the recording of complaints was inconsistent and that the home had no record of a recent complaint made about the service. We made a recommendation about this in the report.

We found that staff had a good knowledge of how to keep people safe from harm and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had been employed following appropriate recruitment and selection processes. We found that people's needs were assessed and risk assessments put in place to keep people using the service and staff safe from avoidable harm. The service had a robust system in place for ordering, administering and disposing of medicines.

We saw that staff completed an induction process and they had received a wide range of training, which covered topics including safeguarding, moving and handling and infection control. Staff told us they felt well supported; they received supervision, appraisals and attended team meetings. Staff received training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and had knowledge sufficient for their role.

The manager understood the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and we found that the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) (2005) guidelines had been followed. The home did not use restraint but the manager understood the process to ensure that any restraint was lawful.

People told us that the staff were caring and they felt well looked after. We saw people were treated with respect and dignity and saw examples of positive interactions between the staff and people living in the home.

People had their health and social care needs assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. Care plans were individualised to include preferences, likes and dislikes and contained detailed information about how each person should be supported. People were offered a variety of different activities.

We found the registered provider had audits in place to check that the systems at the home were being followed and people were receiving appropriate care and support.

We found that improvements had been made with regards to infection control practices and the environment. All areas we looked at were clean and well maintained.

Our observations of the service showed us that the staff were very kind and caring and all the people who spoke with us were very happy with their care. One person said 'The staff are very good, they listen to what we say.' Another person said 'The staff look after us well, nothing is too much trouble.'

People said they were happy with their rooms and the communal areas. However, we had a number of concerns about the environment and fire safety practices within the service.

The home was designed to meet the needs of people who lived there and the provider ensured equipment used to assist people with their daily lives was regularly maintained, safe and fit for purpose.

The provider had an effective quality assurance system in place and people's views and opinions of the service were listened to and acted on where necessary.

We found that record keeping within the service was good and staff understood about keeping information safe and confidential.

People were satisfied with their inclusion in and the delivery of the care and support they received. They said, "The staff always ask me what I want to do", "I do recall having a care plan and other documents put together here, but my daughter dealt with the majority of the information in them" and "The staff are lovely, they make sure I am assisted whenever I need it. They are discreet and caring."

We saw staff interacting well with people that used the service. Staff were supportive, kind and caring. They listened to people and demonstrated patience.

We saw that there were safe systems in place for handling medication, that staff were appropriately recruited and that people were able to make complaints, have their views listened to and their issues resolved. We saw that there was clear information in the PCAs to inform us and other stakeholders how the home operated and monitored its systems for service delivery.