Parkfield House Nursing Home

Updated 8 March 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

Two inspectors, a member of the CQC’s medicines team and an expert by experience took part in the inspection. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert by expert for this inspection had experience of dementia care.

Service and service type:

Parkfield House Nursing Home is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

The inspection was unannounced.

What we did:

We reviewed information, including notifications we had received about the service since the last inspection. Notifications are about incidents and events the provider must notify us about by law, such as abuse. We also sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. The registered manager completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks providers to give us some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection:

We spoke with four people who used the service and five relatives, and asked them about their experience of the care provided. Some people were not able to contribute their views, so we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) to observe care and interactions between people and staff. SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who could not talk to us.

We spoke with the operations manager, the registered manager, deputy manager, two nurses, eight care workers and ancillary staff. We also spoke with three healthcare professionals who were visiting on the day of our inspection.

We reviewed a range of records. These included 11 people’s care records, audits and quality assurance reports. We also looked at five staff files in relation to recruitment, supervision and training and reviewed records relating to the management of the home and a sample of policies and procedures developed and implemented by the provider.

Updated 8 March 2019

About the service:

Parkfield House Nursing Home is a care home providing accommodation with nursing care for up to 44 older people. There were 40 people living at the service at the time of our inspection. Parkfield House Nursing Home is a purpose-built building over three floors. People with nursing needs lived on the ground floor, whilst people living with dementia were situated on the first floor.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿There was strong evidence that people were fully engaged in a wide range of meaningful activities led by a ‘wellbeing team’. People were consulted about what they wanted to do, and were listened to. Activity plans were displayed and people reported they were very happy with the activities on offer.

¿ Staff were extremely responsive to people’s individual needs and knew them well. They supported each person to achieve their wishes by spending time with them and listening to them. They ensured that each person felt included and valued as an individual.

¿ The registered manager led a hard working and dedicated team. Together, they met people’s individual needs and improved their quality of life.

¿ The provider had systems in place to help ensure people who used the service were safe from avoidable harm and these were effective.

¿ Where there were risks to people who used the service, these had been assessed and included clear guidelines for staff to follow to help ensure people were safe from harm.

¿ People’s healthcare needs were met and we saw that staff took appropriate action when concerns were identified.

¿ The provider had robust systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and put action plans in place where concerns were identified. People’s care records were reviewed and updated monthly or more often if their needs changed.

¿ People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Staff received training in the administration of medicines and had their competencies checked.

¿ Care plans were developed from pre-admission assessments and contained relevant and up to date information about people’s needs and preferences so staff knew how to care for and support them.

¿ People were supported by staff who were suitably trained, supervised and appraised.

¿ Staff had received training in end of life care. People had an end of life care plan in place which stated their individual wishes when they reached the end of their lives.

¿ Recruitment checks were carried out before staff started working for the service and included checks to ensure staff had the relevant previous experience and qualifications.

¿ People were protected by the provider’s arrangements in relation to the prevention and control of infection. The home was clean, tidy and well maintained throughout.

¿ The environment was tailored to the individual needs of people who used the service, including those living with the experience of dementia.

¿ The provider acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 . People had their capacity assessed before they moved into the home. Where necessary, people were being deprived of their liberty lawfully.

¿ The provider had processes for the recording and investigation of incidents and accidents. We saw that these included actions taken and lessons learned.

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection on3 August 2016 the service was rated good.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating. During our last inspection we rated the service good overall although we rated the key question of ‘well led’ as requires improvement. During this inspection we found the service had made the required improvements.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection program. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.