Queens Park View

We found the following examples of good practice.

The provider was following best practice guidance in terms of ensuring visitors to the home did not spread COVID-19. Staff were adhering to personal protective equipment (PPE) guidance and practices.

Communal areas were well spaced and people, with support from staff were encouraged to maintain social distancing and use face masks in the community where required. Plans were in place for those who may be required to self-isolate. For those people who may struggle with isolation additional support would be provided.

The service had arrangements in place residents to safely meet with their friends and relatives and people were also supported to spend time in the community.

Staff continued to support people to access healthcare, and arrangements were in place should people need to attend hospital safely.

Queens Park View is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to six people at the time of the inspection. The home is a large, three storey terraced house, consisting of six single bedrooms and communal areas. The service can support six people with enduring mental health needs.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were protected from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were well managed and people felt safe. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff deployed to meet people's needs. Medicines were managed safely. People were protected from the risk of infection as prevention and control measures were in place.

People's needs were assessed, and care and support had been planned in partnership with them. Staff worked with other healthcare professionals to meet people's health related needs. People were provided with a varied diet. Staff received the training and support they needed to carry out their roles. People were supported to have maximum 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.

People were treated with dignity and respect and said staff were kind and caring. People's right to privacy was upheld. The registered manager provided people with information about local advocacy services, to ensure they could access support to express their views if they needed to.

People experienced personalised care, which supported them to feel valued and was responsive to their needs. People’s communication needs had been assessed and where support was required these had been met. People were entertained and stimulated by activities provided for them. People knew how to complain, and felt concerns raised would be listened to and acted upon.

The registered manager worked in partnership with a variety of agencies to ensure people received coordinated care which met their needs. People were happy with how the service was managed. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager. The registered manager and provider completed regular audits and checks, which ensured appropriate levels of quality and safety were maintained at the home.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 16 August 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

At the last inspection the service was rated overall good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

The provider had failed to notify us that the previous registered manager had left their employment. Although they have now have another manager in post they have yet to register with us.

The manager and provider were approachable and supportive towards people and staff members. People were encouraged to be involved in decisions about Queens Park View and their suggestions were valued by the provider.

People continued to remain safe from the risks of abuse or ill-treatment. This was because staff members knew how to recognise and respond to such concerns.

People were supported by enough staff to meet their needs and people received their medicines safely.

The provider followed safe recruitment procedures when employing new staff members.

Staff members had the training and skills to meet people’s individual needs.

People had care and support plans that reflected the areas of their lives which they needed assistance with. When changes occurred in people’s needs these care and support plans were reviewed to reflect the changes.

People were supported to have choice and control over their lives. They were assisted by staff in the least restrictive way possible. Staff were aware of current guidance which directed their practice and people’s human rights were protected by the staff who supported them.

People received support that continued to be caring. Staff members respected people’s privacy, dignity and promoted independence through personal skill building.

Staff members knew people’s support needs and assisted them as they wanted. People were encouraged to raise any concerns or complaints. The provider had systems in place to address any issues raised with them.

Staff members felt valued as employees and their opinions and ideas were encouraged by the provider. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of service and where necessary made changes to drive improvements.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

A daily record file known as a "grab file" was maintained. This ensured that current information was readily available for care staff, in respect of each person who used the service. This file also contained daily progress records which were comprehensive and gave a good understanding of each days events.

We reviewed staffing rotas and these demonstrated the staffing establishment was consistent and stable. We found that staffing levels had increased to reflect the additional number of people living at Queens Park View.

We sampled four care files and noted that care staff and the person who was receiving care, had a section to sign to confirm that consent was given to the care agreed within the care plan.

We found medicines were appropriately obtained, stored, administered and recorded.

During the inspection we saw appropriate systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. Audits included care plans, medication administration, complaints and compliments and environmental monitoring.

Daily records were documented and these provided a clear record of day to day events and information that was communicated between staff. We saw an example of how referrals were made in a timely manner when any concerns were raised about the health of any individual. There was evidence that people had access, when needed, to relevant health care professionals, such as dieticians, community psychiatric nurse (CPN) and their GP.

We observed the people who lived at the home to be contented and very relaxed amongst the staff present.

We found there were detailed care plans and assessments in place, which were individualised and person centred. However we did not find evidence that when individuals had capacity, that the individual had consented to the care plan that was implemented.

During the inspection we sampled six staff files. We found that they contained all required employment information which included, application forms, criminal records checks, contracts of employment, references and photo identification.