Archived: Parklands - Care Home

Updated 29 July 2016

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 registered 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 was carried out on 3 May 2016 and following the receipt of some information of concern was revisited on 7 July 2016. Both visits were unannounced. One Adult Social Care (ASC) inspector carried out the inspection.

Before this inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the service, such as notifications we had received from the registered provider and information we had received from the local authorities that commissioned a service from the home. Notifications are when registered providers send us information about certain changes, events or incidents that occur. We also contacted the local authority safeguarding adults and quality monitoring teams to enquire about any recent involvement they had with the home. They did not have any concerns about Parklands at the time of this visit.

The registered provider was asked to submit a Provider Information Return (PIR) prior to the inspection, as this was a planned inspection. This is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The registered provider submitted their PIR in the agreed timescale.

During the inspection, we spoke with three members of staff, the manager, five people who used the service, two healthcare professionals and three relatives. We spent time observing the interaction between people who lived at the home, the staff and any visitors.

We looked at all areas of the home, including bedrooms (with people's permission) and office accommodation. We also spent time looking at records, which included the care records for three people, medication records for five people, handover records, supervision and training records for three members of staff and quality assurance audits and action plans.

Updated 29 July 2016

This inspection took place on 03 May 2016. The inspection was unannounced. We previously visited the service on 11 December 2013 and we found that the registered provider met the regulations we assessed.

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.