We carried out a review of the data available to us about Peaker Park Care Village on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Peaker Park Care Village, you can give feedback on this service.
Peaker Park Care Village is a residential care home, providing personal and nursing care to older people. The home specialised in caring for people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection, there were 108 people who used the service. This service can support up to 137 people. Accommodation is provided in three separate buildings divided into six units.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ The service had clear visiting protocols in place for visitors to the service. The protocols were in line with good practice relating to infection, control and prevention procedures that all visitors were required to follow.
¿ Staff practiced safe use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). They used this in line with current guidance and good practice
¿ The service had effective systems in place for managing outbreak of infections. This included systems for zoning, cohorting staff and people and regular cleaning of the home.
Peaker Park Care Village is a residential and nursing care home, providing personal care for up to 137 people. At the time of the inspection 116 people were using the service. Accommodation is provided in 3 separate buildings divided into 6 units. Each unit consists of ensuite and communal facilities for 20 – 30 people.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
The majority of people we spoke with praised the home. People felt safe and well cared for. People's preferences were respected, and staff were sensitive and attentive to people's needs. Staff were seen to be kind, caring and friendly and it was clear staff knew people and their relatives well.
There were sufficient numbers of staff employed to ensure people's needs were met. We saw staff had time to engage people in conversation.
Recruitment practices were safe, and staff received the training they required for their role.
Risks to people's health, safety and well-being were assessed and care plans were in place to ensure risks were mitigated as much as possible.
Staff were aware of their responsibilities to safeguard people and the home had robust procedures in place.
People's care plans contained personalised information detailing how they wanted their care to be delivered.
Staff were keen to ensure people's rights were respected including those related to their ethnicity and dietary requirements.
People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Medicine management practices were safe.
People were supported to eat and drink enough. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and access healthcare services when required.
The service was provided in a pleasant and clean environment.
Consideration was given to providing a variety of leisure and social activities for people to enjoy.
Quality assurance systems were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
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 requires improvement (report published 03 October 2018).
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.
Peaker Park Care Village is a large residential and nursing home comprising of three separate buildings on one site. These are called Melody, Mulroy and Fiddlers Corner. Melody is the largest building and this is divided into four separate units. The four separate units are called Gumley, Bowden, Albany and Clipston. The home houses a maximum of 137 people, with between 20-30 people living in each unit.
People who live in the Gormley site are more independent. Fiddlers Corner mainly supported people with re-ablement from hospital, although this contract had recently ended. People who lived in the different units in Melody had more physical nursing needs and/or dementia care needs. At the time of our visit, the home had 110 people living there.
The home 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.
The home had staffing vacancies which they were actively recruiting to. Sometimes there were not staff available to meet people’s needs at the time they wanted them met, especially at night time. Staff deployment meant there were times when people were not safely supported by staff.
People were safeguarded from harm. The registered manager and staff knew, and adhered to safeguarding procedures.
The risks related to people’s health and well-being had been identified, and actions to reduce the risks from becoming a reality had been taken by staff. Medicines were managed safely.
People’s healthcare needs were met by the nurses on duty; and by access to other healthcare professionals when requested or needed.
Good liaison between different health and social care professionals supported people to receive effective care.
The equipment people used was adequately maintained and clean; and the premises kept in safe and good repair. The home was clean and staff had a good knowledge of infection control measures.
Staff received training from the provider’s in-house training department, and this provided them with the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. They received support from their line managers to help them do their jobs well.
People received a choice of meals and regular fluids to keep them hydrated. There were mixed opinions about the quality of meals and the choice of food. The meal time experience of some people with higher dependency needs was rushed and task focused.
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.
Staff were caring and kind to people. They supported people’s dignity and privacy. Staff provided to support to people at the end of their lives.
There was a range of activities available to people, although some people who lived with dementia did not have their interests or needs provided for as well as others. Some people had not been supported to undertake activities they had previously enjoyed.
The registered manager responded to complaints as they arose, but some people were not satisfied that enough changes had been made in response to their concerns.
Visitors were welcomed into the home.
The registered manager was respected by their staff team. They were open to learning from mistakes and passionate about providing good quality care to people who lived at the home.
The provider undertook regular audits of the home to ensure quality and safety. The provider and manager were aware of the improvements required and were addressing them.
This is the first time the home has been rated as ‘requires improvement’ since it’s last rating of ‘good’.
Peaker Park Care Village is registered to provide care for up to 137 people who require personal or nursing care. The service consists of five self-contained units comprising of accommodation, dining areas, lounges and other communal areas. Facilities include a cinema, games rooms and hairdressing salons. People have access to landscaped gardens. At the time of our inspection 108 people were using the service.
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.
People were safe because staff knew how to recognise and report signs of abuse. People were supported to be as independent as possible. The registered manager and team leaders of the five units calculated staffing levels based on the needs and dependencies of the people using the service.
Equipment was used safely and was regularly maintained.
The provider had robust recruitment procedures that ensured as far as possible that only staff suited to work at Peaker Park Care Village were employed there.
People received their medicines on time. The provider had effective procedures for the safe management of medicines. Medicines were safely stored and there were effective arrangements for the disposal of medicines that were no longer required.
People using the service told us they felt staff were knowledgeable about their needs. Staff received relevant training and support to be able to meet the needs of people using the service. Training was delivered by the provider’s own trainers and by externally sourced trainers. Relatives of people using the service consistently told us they felt staff were well trained.
The registered manager and senior staff had a good working knowledge of the relevance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Other staff had an awareness of the legislation. All staff understood that no forms of restraint were permissible without authorisation by the local authority.
People’s nutritional needs were met. People had a choice of foods and drinks and were satisfied with the quality of the meals that were provided. Staff were attentive to people’s health needs and supported people to access health services when they needed them.
Staff were caring. We saw lots of examples of staff showing kindness and compassion. Staff often made extra special efforts on their days off to bring happiness into people’s lives. People using the service and their relatives had opportunities to be involved in decisions about their care and support. Relatives of staff working at the service or for the provider organisation used the service. This showed the service passed it’s `mum’s test’ that staff were happy for the loved ones to use the service. People were treated with dignity and staff respected people’s privacy.
People received care and support that was centred on their needs. They had access to social activities. An activities coordinator had developed activities that supported people to follow their interests and hobbies. People had opportunities to make suggestions and raise concerns. They told us they were confident about raising concerns and that they would be listened to. The provider had acted upon people’s comments and feedback, for example in relation to social activities and meals.
The management team were clearly visible and available to people using the service. The management team had clearly defined aims and objectives about what they wanted to achieve for each of the five units and the service as a whole. Staff shared those aims and objectives and were motivated by and fully supportive of them. Staff felt well led. The provider had effective procedures for monitoring and assessing the service that drove continuous improvement.
Under the direction of the registered manager Peaker Park Care Village had increasingly become an integral part of the Market Harborough community and worked with and supported local organisations for the benefit of people using the service and the local community.
Our inspection took place on 21 and 30 April 2015. The inspection was unannounced.
Peaker Park Care Village is registered to provide care for up to 137 people who require personal or nursing care. The service consists of five self-contained units comprising of accommodation, dining areas, lounges and other communal areas. Facilities include a cinema, games rooms and hairdressing salons. People have access to landscaped gardens. At the time of our inspection 97 people were using the service.
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.
People were safe because staff knew how to recognise and report signs of abuse. People were supported to be as independent as possible. Enough suitably skilled and experienced staff were available to meet people’s needs, though on occasion cover for all unexpected absences had not been arranged.
Equipment was used safely and was regularly maintained.
The provider had robust recruitment procedures.
People received their medicines on time. The provider had effective procedures for the safe management of medicines but these were not always followed by staff. We saw omissions and inaccuracies in medicines records, though this had no impact on people using the service.
People using the service told us they felt staff were knowledgeable about their needs Staff received relevant training and support to be able to meet the needs of people using the service..
The registered manager and senior staff had a good working knowledge of the relevance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Other staff had an awareness of the legislation. All staff understood that no forms of restraint were permissible without authorisation by the local authority.
People’s nutritional needs were met. People had a choice of foods and drinks and spoke in complimentary terms about the meals that were provided. Staff were attentive to people’s health needs and supported people to access health services when they needed them.
Staff were caring. We saw lots of examples of staff showing kindness and compassion. People using the service and their relatives had opportunities to be involved in decisions about their care and support. People were treated with dignity and staff respected people’s privacy.
People received care and support that was centred on their needs. They had access to social activities and staff supported people to follow their interests and hobbies. The registered manager had begun a review to ensure that all people with hobbies were supported to be able to follow them.
People had opportunities to make suggestions and raise concerns. They told us they were confident about raising concerns and that they would be listened to. The provider had acted upon people’s comments and feedback, for example in relation to social activities.
The management team were clearly visible and available to people using the service. The management team had clearly defined aims and objectives about what they wanted to achieve for the service. Staff felt well led. The provider had effective procedures for monitoring and assessing the service.
We found that improvements had been made since our last visit to the service in August 2013.
We found that soap and paper towels were available in each of the en suite bathrooms and laundry trolleys had been purchased and were in use to transport dirty laundry with proper regard to hygiene.
We were accompanied on the inspection by an expert in infection control. The provider may find it useful to note that the expert discussed with the hotel services manager and the infection control lead a number of other area where improvements could be made.
We found that quality assurance systems were being used effectively to ensure that the service was meeting the appropriate standards of quality and safety. This included detailed care records audits. We saw that the manager carried out weekly and monthly medication audits. These included reviewing the medication records and counting the tablets that were not dispensed in blister packs. This ensured that medicines were appropriately accounted for. We saw that staff administering medicine had undertaken competency assessments which were completed six monthly.
Most people were happy with their care. Some spoke very highly of the service they received one person told us 'It's a wonderful place ' couldn't be better.' One relative told us, 'The care is first class. Couldn't ask for more.' Another relative raised several concerns about the care of their family member.
We spoke with care staff on each of the units and found them knowledgeable about people's care needs. We saw that staff spoke with people in a caring and respectful manner.
We spoke with staff about safeguarding. They were able to tell us about their responsibilities to safeguard people from harm including how to report any concerns they had.
The home had a policy on infection control and records showed that staff attended training; We found that systems were not consistently in place to reduce the risk of the spread of infection.
We observed five members of staff administering medication. We found that medicines were not always handled appropriately. We found that appropriate arrangements were not always in place for the recording of medicines.
We found that although the provider had systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others but these were not always effective.
We saw that people were being offered fortified milkshakes where these had been recommended by a dietician and food and fluid charts showed people were able to have snacks and drinks between meals.
We found that since our inspection in October 2012 an additional member of care staff had been allocated to one of the units within the home and an additional member of nursing staff was working across the home each day. We also found that the number of people living in the home had decreased from 86 to 79. This meant that there were more staff available to care for fewer people.
Since our last visit a new manager had started working at the home. She started just over a week prior to our visit 23 January 2013. At the time of our visit she had not gone through our registration process to be the registered manager for Peaker Park.
We visited Peaker over three days and spoke with twenty people living in the home, five relatives of people living in the home and ten members of staff across all five units within the home. All spoke highly of the care and the staff providing care. One person explained that the staff cheered them up when they were feeling down. Two other people told us that the felt they could not be in a better place.
Although people spoke highly of their care and the staff some people raised concerns about the availability of staff to assist them. One person said person said, 'I don't think there are enough staff ' I never see them. I don't think that's right, we should see them.' We found that care and treatment was not consistently planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. During our visit in May 2012 and in October 2012 we found care records contained basic information about how staff should care for people but did not consistently specify the care and support people needed.
As part of our inspection we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.