Archived: West Park Care Home

Updated 21 February 2017

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 took place on 19 and 20 January 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector and an Expert by Experience [ExE]. An ExE is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). 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. We looked at the PIR and also checked our systems for any notifications that had been sent in as these would tell us how the registered provider managed incidents and accidents that affected the welfare of people who used the service.

Prior to the inspection we spoke with local authority safeguarding and contracts and commissioning teams about their views of the service. We also received information from health professionals who visited the service and we checked the latest Healthwatch report from an ‘enter and view visit’ they completed in February 2016. Healthwatch England is the national consumer champion in health and care and ensure the voice of the consumer is strengthened and heard by those who commission, deliver and regulate health and care services.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We also carried out general observations of how staff interacted with people who used the service throughout the days and at mealtimes. We spoke with nine people who used the service and two people who were visiting their relative. We spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager (who was the nurse on duty), one senior and two care workers, the activity coordinator, the cook, a kitchen assistant, and a house keeper. We also spoke with two community nurses who were visiting the service during the inspection.

We looked at four care files which belonged to people who used the service. We also looked at other important documentation relating to people who used the service, These included a wound care record for a person admitted to the service with a pressure ulcer, medication administration records (MARs) for 25 people, accident reports, daily care and support recording, and monitoring charts for food, fluid, weights and pressure relief. We looked at how the service used the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that when people were assessed as lacking capacity to make their own decisions, best interest meetings were held in order to make important decisions on their behalf.

We looked at a selection of documentation relating to the management and running of the service. These included two staff recruitment files, training records, the staff rota, minutes of meetings with staff and people who used the service, quality assurance audits, complaints and compliments management and maintenance of equipment records.

Updated 21 February 2017

West Park Nursing Home is registered to provide nursing or personal care for up to 40 people. However, the registered manager told us they never admit more than 37 people. The home has two floors accessed by a passenger lift and stairs. There are 32 bedrooms for single occupancy and 4 shared bedrooms; some of the shared bedrooms have been made for single occupancy to give people more space as they required specific equipment. There is a large lounge/dining room on the ground floor and bathing facilities on both floors.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

At the last full comprehensive inspection on 9 July 2015, we rated the service as Requires Improvement overall. This was because we wanted to make sure improvements were sustained over a period of time following an Inadequate rating in January 2015. At this full comprehensive inspection we found improvements had been made and sustained. There were 30 people using the service at the time of this inspection; four people were in hospital which brought the occupancy down to 26 although people were due to be discharged back to West Park shortly.

We found the service was safe for people who lived there. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from the risk of harm and abuse and knew how to raise any concerns. People had risk assessments which helped to guide staff in how to minimise risk whilst helping them to maintain their independence.

We found people had their needs assessed and plans of care were developed which helped to guide staff in how to deliver individualised care to them in line with their preferences.

People’s health and nutritional needs were met. We found staff contacted health professionals in a timely way for advice and treatment. The menus provided people with a varied and nutritional diet and any concerns about weight management or swallowing difficulties were discussed with dieticians and speech and language therapists. People told us they liked the meals.

We saw people received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were ordered in a timely way, stored safely and only administered by qualified nurses or staff who had completed training.

We found people were supported and encouraged to make their own choices and decisions. When people were assessed as not having capacity to make their own decisions, the registered provider and registered manager worked with mental capacity legislation and held best interest meetings with relevant people present to discuss decision-making options.

Staff were recruited safely and in sufficient numbers to ensure that people’s needs were met.

People told us staff were kind and caring to them. We observed staff had developed good relationships with people who used the service and their relatives. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and confidentiality maintained. We saw that personal records were held securely and conversations with health professionals were held in private.

Records showed us staff had access to training, support and supervision. This enabled staff to feel confident when supporting people and knowledgeable about meeting their needs.

There was a quality assurance system which helped to identify shortfalls so these could be addressed quickly. We found the registered manager used this system to learn and improve practice.

The registered provider had a complaints procedure and people who used the service and their relatives felt able to raise concerns knowing they would be addressed.