Phoenix Park Care Village

Updated 19 December 2018

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.

The inspection was unannounced on day one and three. It took place on 7, 8 and 15 November 2018. On day one it was undertaken by four inspectors and an expert by experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. On day two four inspectors were present and on day three one inspector.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the information submitted in the PIR along with other information we held, including statutory notifications which the provider had submitted. Statutory notifications are pieces of information about important events which took place at the service, for example, safeguarding incidents, which the provider is required to send to us by law. We looked at the notifications we had received and reviewed all the intelligence we held to inform our planning of this inspection.

During our inspection we looked at a variety of records which, included 13 people’s care files, six staff files, staff’s training, supervision, appraisal and recruitment documentation. We inspected everyone’s medicine administration records (MAR) on Hilltop and Fairways and four people’s on Overfields. We looked at records relating to the management of the service including policies and procedures, quality assurance documents including checks and audits, staff rotas, complaints and compliments. We spoke with the two directors and their support manager, with the two registered managers, three team leaders two nurses, six care staff and the cook. We spoke with the clinical nurse lead and trainer, working on behalf of the provider. We spoke with 18 people living at the service and with seven relatives who were visiting to gain their views. We also asked the registered managers to send us further information following the site visit. This was provided within the given timeframe.

We asked the local authority commissioning and safeguarding teams for their views prior to our inspection. We also contacted Healthwatch (a healthcare consumer champion) to ask if they had any feedback to share about this service.

Some people living at the service were living with dementia and could not tell us about their experiences. We used a number of different methods to help us understand their experiences which included the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who could not talk with us. This confirmed that people were supported appropriately by staff and provided us with evidence that staff understood people’s individual needs and preferences.

Updated 19 December 2018

Phoenix Park Care Village is purpose built and is situated on the outskirts of Scunthorpe. The home provides care and accommodation for up to 146 people. There are three units, Hilltop, Overfields and Fairways.

Hilltop predominately provides care for older people. Some people have nursing, dementia, mental health or challenging behaviour needs. The ground floor accommodates a mixture of people some with nursing needs. The first floor accommodates people who all have nursing needs. There were 59 people living in the Hilltop unit at the time of our visit.

Overfields predominately provides care for younger adults who have complex care needs relating to their mental health. There were 34 people living on this unit at the time of our visit.

Fairways is a 35 bedded unit. Mainly for men with mental health needs and challenging behaviour needs. This unit opened on 17 July 2018. There were 13 people living on this unit. Altogether there were 106 people living at the service at the time of the inspection.

Phoenix Park Care Village is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that 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.

There were two registered managers’ in post due to the size of the service. 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.

Minor issues were found on the first day of the inspection. These were regarding medicines ‘as required' protocols that required reviewing or implementing for eight people and there were minor issues with unsecured gloves and cleaning fluid found in two areas. These issues were corrected immediately by the management team. Staff were provided with supervision and further training during the inspection to make sure these minor issues would not re-occur. We found no further concerns in these areas over the next two days of the inspection.

People were protected from harm and abuse. Staff knew how to recognise and report potential issues. Safeguarding issues were reported and acted upon. Incidents and accidents were monitored and investigated. Risks to people’s wellbeing were assessed, monitored and addressed to maintain people’s health and safety. Staff were aware of how to support people if they displayed challenging behaviour.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. Staff undertook training in a variety of subjects had supervision and an annual appraisal to maintain and develop their skills.

People had maximum choice and control over their lives. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way. Policies supported this practice. People were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

People’s dietary needs were assessed and monitored to ensure their dietary needs were met.

Staff provided people with caring, kind and compassionate care and support. Staff provided appropriate reassurance and support if people became anxious, upset or displayed challenging behaviour. People’s privacy and dignity was protected. Information was provided to people in a format that met their needs, in line with the Accessible Information Standards.

An assessment of people’s needs took place. People were not accepted to live at the service if their needs could not be met. People’s needs were reassessed as their needs changed. Staff understood people’s preferences for their care and support. Complaints were investigated and this information was used to improve the service. End of life care was provided for people.

The management team were open and transparent and operated an ‘open door’ policy. Quality assurance checks and audits were undertaken to monitor the quality of service provided. The provider asked for feedback from people living at the service, their relatives, staff and visiting health care professionals. Feedback received was acted upon to maintain or improve the service. The provider continued to look at how the service could be improved. There was now a clinical nurse lead working at the service to further develop the care and support provided to people. Confidential information was held securely.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.