Archived: Parklands

Updated 27 April 2015

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.

We made an unannounced inspection on 12 January 2015. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors.

We looked at the information we held about the service and the provider. We looked at statutory notifications that the provider had sent us. Statutory notifications are reports that the provider is required by law to send to us, to inform us about incidents that have happened at the service, such as an accident or a serious injury. Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke with two people who lived at the home, and three relatives. We observed how staff supported people throughout the day. As part of our observations 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 spoke with the manager and four staff. We looked at seven records about people’s care, staff rosters, complaint files, meeting minutes for meetings with staff and people that lived at the home. Quality audits the registered manager and provider had competed.

Updated 27 April 2015

This inspection took place on 12 January 2015 and was unannounced. Parklands provides accommodation and personal care for a maximum of 29 people. There were 23 people who lived at the home at the time of our inspection.

There was no registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. The current manager was applying to become registered with us. 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 our last inspection in February 2014 the provider was not meeting the essential standards of care and welfare, and the assessing and monitoring of the quality of service provision. Following this inspection the provider sent us an action plan to tell us the improvements they were going to make. During this inspection we found the provider had made some improvements

People were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. The quality of record keeping for medicines was not always good. This increased the risk of medicines not being given as prescribed and people’s health maybe at risk of harm.

People and their relatives said they felt safe and staff treated them well. Relatives told us staff were kind and caring and thoughtful towards people. We observed there was not always enough staff available in one of the communal lounge areas to meet people’s needs.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and report on what we find. The manager understood their role and responsibilities. We found the provider had not consistently followed the principles of the MCA and DoLS when assessing people’s ability to make specific decisions, and so the decision to restrict somebody’s liberty is only made by people who had suitable authority to do so.

Staff we spoke with understood that they had responsibility to take action to protect people from harm. They demonstrated awareness and recognition of abuse and systems were in place to guide them in reporting these.

Staff were knowledgeable about how to manage people’s individual risks, and were able to respond to people’s needs. People were supported by staff with up to date knowledge about providing effective care. We saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect whilst supporting their needs. People’s preferences were taken into account and respected.

People had sufficient food and drink to maintain a healthy diet. People were supported to eat and drink well and had access to health professionals in a timely manner. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were well managed

Relatives knew how to raise complaints and the provider had arrangements in place so that people were listened to and action taken to make any necessary improvements.

The systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service did not always ensure people received personalised care.

The registered manager promoted a positive approach to including people’s views. People and staff were encouraged to be involved in regular meetings to share their thoughts and concerns about the quality of the service

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.