All inspections: Parkside - Care Quality Commission

This inspection took place on 10 July 2017 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.

Parkside provides care and accommodation for up to four people with learning and physical disabilities. On the day of our inspection there were three people using the service.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like 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.

We last inspected the service in July 2015 and rated the service as ‘Good.’ At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’ and met all the fundamental standards we inspected against.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and risk assessments were in place. The registered manager understood their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding and staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe administration and storage of medicines.

The home was clean, spacious and suitable for the people who used the service and appropriate health and safety checks had been carried out.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people who used the service. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant vetting checks when they employed staff.

At the previous inspection we identified that staff did not always receive regular supervisions, and appraisals were overdue. During this inspection we found staff were suitably appraised and regular supervisions took place. Staff were suitably trained.

The provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and was following legal requirements in respect of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition and staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs. Care records contained evidence of people being supported during visits to and from external health care specialists.

People who used the service and family members were complimentary about the standard of care at Parkside.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible.

Care records showed that people’s needs were assessed before they started using the service and care plans were written in a person-centred way. Person-centred is about ensuring the person is at the centre of any care or support plans and their individual wishes, needs and choices are taken into account.

Activities were arranged for people who used the service based on their likes and interests and to help meet their social needs.

The provider had an effective complaints procedure in place and people who used the service and family members were aware of how to make a complaint.

The provider had an effective quality assurance process in place and staff told us they enjoyed their role, and felt supported by the management team.

This unannounced inspection took place on 2 July 2015. We last inspected the service in January 2014 and at that inspection we found the service was meeting all of the regulations that we inspected.

Parkside provides residential care for up to four people with learning and/or physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were four people living at the home.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 who were able, told us by gesturing that they felt safe living at the home. Relatives told us they were confident their family member lived in a safe environment. One relative told us, “My relative is very safe here, there have been no issues.”

People lived in a clean and homely environment, with bedrooms tailored to people’s specific needs.

Relatives told us their family member received their medicine on time and no issues were reported to us. Staff at the service were trained to administer medicines to people safely and securely and best practice guidelines were followed.

Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures. They also knew how to report any concerns they had and recognised their own personal responsibility to protect vulnerable people. The provider had procedures in place to monitor and investigate any safeguarding matters.

Staff followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). MCA assessments and ‘best interests’ decisions had been made where there were doubts about a person’s capacity to make decisions. The registered manager had made DoLS applications to the local authority and authorisations had been received for two people with a further two outstanding.

Staff had a good understanding of how to manage people’s behaviours that challenged the service and had individualised strategies to help and guide them.

Although it was busy at times, relatives and staff all told us they felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs, The registered manager monitored staffing levels to ensure enough trained staff were available at all times. The provider had systems in place for the recruitment of all staff at the home, including suitability for the post, full history, references and security checks. The registered manager had a programme of staff training in place and monitored this to ensure all staff were kept up to date with any training needs.

The registered manager completed supervisions and appraisals with staff, but we found these had fallen behind.

The registered manager told us any maintenance work was done by the provider upon request. The provider also had emergency procedures in place including an emergency continuity plan which outlined what staff would do in various types of unforeseen emergencies, for example in the event of a fire.

We found people received nutritious meals, snacks and refreshments throughout the day and during observations it was confirmed that people appeared to enjoy meals in a social and unhurried fashion.

People were respected and treated with dignity, compassion, warmth and kindness. People and their relatives highlighted the quality of care provided by staff at the home. One relative told us, “Staff discuss [person’s name] needs with us as a family.” They continued, “If [person’s name] is unwell they are very quick to let me know and to get the GP.”

People were treated as individuals and monitored so any changes in their needs were identified and procedures put in place to address that change. People’s records were regularly reviewed and discussed with the person where possible and their relatives, or best interest decisions were made if necessary.

People were able to participate in a range of activities in the service and also activities that occurred outside of the service environment, for example going on holiday or going to the pub.

There had been no complaints since the last scheduled inspection. Information on how to complain was available to people at the service and to relatives and visitors alike. The registered manager explained the appropriate action he would follow if a complaint was made.

People were regularly asked for their views about the service overall and about their care, at individual keyworker monthly meetings. The majority of relatives confirmed they were asked their views, during visits, reviews of care or annual service reviews.

Regular monitoring and quality checks were completed by the registered manager and the provider. A range of daily, weekly and monthly checks were completed with actions followed through when issues had been raised.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

People who used the service were involved in their care as much as possible and were able to make choices. One member of staff told us, 'I always try and offer choices and they can indicate a preference. It is a look, a smile or a laugh. There will be something which shows you.' One relative we spoke with told us, 'He has not been there long. He has his own way of communicating and the staff are beginning to understand his ways.'

We found that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. One person's care manager said, 'The staff and the manager have been very dedicated and there has been very good communication.' One relative told us, 'It is a lovely place; he is getting very good care.'

The provider had in place a safeguarding policy. Staff we spoke with were aware of the policy, were able to describe what was meant by safeguarding and discuss the different types of abuse that may occur. One relative told us, 'I feel he is very safe there.'

Staff we spoke with told us they felt well supported at the home. They told us that staff members worked well together and they felt that they were supported by the manager. Staff told us that they had regular supervision meetings with a senior member of staff or the manager.

People's care plans were reviewed and updated as necessary. Relatives we spoke with told us that they were involved in evaluating people's care at monthly key worker meetings. We saw evidence that regular checks were carried out by the manager or designated staff members and quality audits undertaken by the regional manager.

We were not able to communicate with a high proportion of people who lived at Parkside due to their complex needs, but we did speak to one person who told us they were happy living there. We spoke with staff and observed their practices in order to determine how care and support was delivered. We spoke with the relatives of two people who lived at the home and they said they felt confident their relatives were well-cared for and treated with respect. One relative told us "I am very happy with the care my relative receives. The staff are really nice and I can come here anytime I want to visit. It is a great home."

These older reports are from our old approaches to inspection, including those from before CQC was created.

Archived: Parkside

All Inspections

10 July 2017

During a routine inspection

2 July 2015

During a routine inspection

2 January 2014

During a routine inspection

4 July 2012

During a routine inspection

Reports under our old system of regulation