Archived: Parklands View

¿Parklands View provided domiciliary care services to younger adults, older people, who maybe living with dementia, physical disability or visual impairment. This service provided onsite care and support if required

over a 24-hour period. Parklands View had 82 self-contained apartments on the purpose built site. At this inspection visit 58 people were receiving personal care.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿People were protected from the risk of harm by staff who understood their responsibilities to safeguard people.

¿Recruitment procedures had improved o ensure prospective staff were suitable to care for people receiving personal care in their own homes, because all the required pre-employment checks were in place.

¿People told us they felt safe with the care provided by staff. Risks were identified and assessed. Staff we spoke with understood their responsibility in protecting people from the risk of harm. Staff told us they had received training and an induction that had helped them to understand and support people.

¿The deployment and planning of staff had improved since the last inspection visit. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs who were currently receiving support from the service. People were supported to take their medicines in a safe way.

¿Staff had received training in infection control and were provided with the necessary personal protective equipment to use when carrying out care and support tasks

¿Staff supported people to make decisions about their day to day care and support.

¿When needed, people were supported to maintain their dietary requirements. Staff we spoke with were aware of who to contact in an event of an emergency.

¿People told us that staff treated them in a caring way and respected their privacy and supported them to maintain their dignity. The delivery of care was tailored to meet people's individual needs and preferences.

¿The provider’s complaints policy and procedure was accessible to people who used the service and their representatives. People knew how to make a complaint and felt their concerns would be listened to and addressed.

¿Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service to enable the registered manager to implement improvements when required.

Rating at last inspection:

¿At our last inspection, the service was rated "requires improvement". Our last report was published on 8 January 2018.

Why we inspected:

¿This was a planned inspection based on the rating of the last inspection. At this inspection we saw improvements had been made and the service was rated ‘Good.’

Follow up:

¿We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care. Further inspections will be planned for future dates.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Parklands View provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is bought or rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

Parklands View provided domiciliary care services to younger adults, older people, who maybe living with dementia, physical disability or visual impairment. This service provided onsite care and support if required over a 24 hour period. Parklands View has 82 self-contained apartments on the purpose built site. At this inspection visit 52 people were receiving personal care.

There was 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 told us they did not always receive calls at the agreed time. This demonstrated that staff were not always deployed in ways to ensure people felt safe and did not receive care and support at the times they needed.

Some people did not feel that they always received a safe service, as their pendant calls were not always responded to promptly. This is where people alerted staff when they required assistance urgently.

Not all steps had been taken to check that people recruited to work for the provider were safe to do so. For one member of staff employed, not all the required pre-employment checks designed to help providers make safer recruitment decisions had been completed as required.

Staff we spoke with understood their responsibility in protecting people from the risk of harm. Staff told us they had received training and an induction that had helped them to understand and support people.

The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 (MCA) helps to ensure that people are supported to make their own decisions wherever possible. Where people were identified as not having capacity there were no records of best interest decision making to show the care and support provided was in the person’s best interests.

People and relatives we spoke with all told us that staff were friendly, kind, positive and caring. However we found that some staff were not always caring in their approach. For example some staff did not always use suitable term’s when talking about people who required assistance at meal times.

Care records contained information to ensure staff knew how to meet people’s individual needs and care plans were reviewed regularly. However risk assessments were not always detailed.

The provider’s complaints policy and procedure were accessible to people who used the service and their representatives. People told us they felt if they raised any concerns these would be addressed by the registered manager. However, we saw no information to confirm that complaints had been resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction.

People were supported to maintain a diet that met their dietary needs. People were supported to access healthcare services as required.

People found the staff and management approachable. Staff felt supported by the management team.

The provider did not have effective governance systems in place to ensure they could drive improvements when required. We found the registered manager was committed to improving all aspects of the service.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.