Park View Care Home with Nursing

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. We identified breaches of legal regulations. Relatives told us they were involved in the developing of their loved one’s care records. Staff knew people well, but care records needed to be more detailed and although care plans were reviewed they did not always identify inconsistencies we found. People received the support they needed, could access healthcare support when required and clinical support was available for people. People had hospital passports in place should they need to go to hospital. Although people were asked for consent a care task was performed, records relating to consent were not always in place.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and their relatives felt they had been involved in developing their/their loved one’s care plan. One relative said, “I have been asked about my mums care and my suggestions are added to her plan.” While the people we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with their care, our assessment found elements of care assessments did not meet the expected standards. For example, care plans had an all about me section, but these were not always completed or as detailed as they should have been to help staff learn about people.

Staff told us that nurses were involved in creating the care plans with the input of people and their relative, one staff member said, “The nurses do them. Family and residents are involved.” A nurse told us, “(We) review care plans monthly. Nurses know the care plans better than all staff, as we make the changes.” Staff knew people well and were able to describe people’s likes and dislikes. However, staff raised some concerns around bathing. We were told “People are bathed at least once a week. Some people haven’t had bath for months but have a full body wash. I have sometimes had to pull staff up about this.” And “Bathing is a sore subject. People are not bathed as frequently as they should be e.g. sometimes only once a week.” We reviewed peoples personal care records, and they were not always person centred enough to understand if people’s assessed needs relating to bathing was being followed.

Some people had pre assessments in place. Care records were not always person centred. People’s health conditions were not always consistently being recorded throughout their care plan. Oral health care plans and personal care, care plans did not always detail the necessary information to help guide staff to meet people’s needs.

People spoke positively about the food and told us there was always enough to drink, people’s comments included, “I really enjoy my food. It's good and always a choice.” And “(There is) no problem with food or drinks – (there is) always plenty.”

Staff told us they knew people’s dietary requirements, but some staff noted that they did not always have time to spend with people at mealtimes to ensure their nutritional needs were being met.

Nurses were available should anyone require a clinical review to ensure people go the correct treatment when/if needed. We saw examples of speech and language therapist involvement where people may need support with their nutrition, hydration and swallowing.

People felt they got the support they needed. One person said, “I have had infections in the past and the home has got me treatment straight away.”

Staff spoke about how they use a diary system to record any necessary actions required by people and how they handover relevant information at the beginning/end of each shift.

Professionals noted an improvement in how staff worked together to ensure people received correct support. One professional said, “We used to struggle with attendance to hospital appointments, this is not happening anymore. We propose that if residents are mobile and wish to attend the surgery with a carer for an appointment that they can do so and the institution will bring them in. They are now self-referring to a multitude of services that they didn't use to such as physiotherapy, OT, Rapid response, healthier minds, horizons, SALT.”

Hospital passports were in place, which held relevant information for each person. These were sent to hospital with the person to ensure the hospital was aware of (and could meet) people's needs on admission. We saw evidence of handover records. We saw evidence of the manager working with other services.

People told us they had access to healthcare support when they needed it. One person told us, “I haven’t needed a doctor, but I know the nurses will always check on me and if I need one, they will organise it.”

Staff spoke about how they monitor people’s health and how they try to support or encourage people to make healthier choices.

People were able to access appropriate healthcare when needed and staff supported them to do this by making appropriate referrals. Nurses were also onsite to offer initial clinical support when/if needed.

People told us they were happy with their quality of life, one person said, “My quality of life is ok given I am living in a home. Things are available to do if you wish. I like to do my own thing. The staff will chat with you and tell you what is going on in the outside world.”

The manager told us how they review and monitor people’s care as part of their resident of the day approach.

People’s care plans were reviewed, though this did not always effectively identify the inconsistencies we found in people’s care plans, which could make it difficult to understand how the service were able to consistently monitor and improve outcomes. People were supported to change position for pressure care, peoples Waterlow and Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) was being taken/recorded where needed.

People told us they were asked for consent before care was provided. People’s comments included, “I am usually asked what I want” and “The staff always knock before entering my room and ask can they do jobs.” While the people we spoke to expressed that they were generally asked for consent, our assessment found elements of consent did not meet the expected standards. For example, necessary consent forms were not always in place.

Staff spoke about gaining people’s consent before completing tasks and what they would do if someone refused care. The manger said, "We have consent records on our care planning system, we ask for consent before an interaction." The manager acknowledged there were some issues relating to consent and spoke about how they should be recording consent, but we found this was not always happening. The manager told us how they would address this going forward.

Consent forms were not always in place for certain aspects of people’s daily life, processes regarding this needed to be more robust. CCTV was in place internally during our inspection but there were no consent forms for people relating to this. Internal CCTV was switched off until the provider addresses the issue.