Park View

This inspection report for Park View provides a detailed overview of the care service provided. It covers key areas such as safety, effectiveness, caring approach, responsiveness to needs, and leadership. The report aims to inform families about the quality of care offered, highlighting both the strengths and areas where improvements have been identified by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspectors.

Regarding the safety of the service, inspectors noted that while residents and relatives felt safe and there were sufficient staff, some risks were not consistently managed. Safeguarding concerns were not always reported to the local authority, and trend analysis of incidents, including medication errors and altercations, was not always thorough. While appropriate recruitment procedures were followed and infection control measures were in place, there's a need for improved oversight to ensure all incidents and risks are appropriately reported.

In terms of how effective the care is, the report indicates that while staff received good training and support, some practices were not always as effective as they could be. For example, restrictive practices, such as denying residents access to their own lighters and cigarettes, were not always supported by appropriate mental capacity assessments. Furthermore, staff supervisions were inconsistent, and some environmental aspects, like a worn settee and overgrown garden, were noted as needing attention.

On the caring aspect, Park View received positive feedback. Residents and their relatives described staff as kind, caring, and patient, noting that they felt well-treated with dignity and respect. Staff seemed to know residents well, supporting their independence and encouraging them to maintain personal interests and hobbies. Residents also felt involved in decisions about their care.

In terms of how responsive the service is, Park View demonstrated a good ability to meet residents' needs through well-organised and personalised care plans. Residents reported being able to pursue activities and hobbies of their choice, and staff showed a good understanding of individual needs and preferences. While a complaints policy was in place, it was not readily displayed, and feedback suggests few complaints have been formally raised.

Finally, concerning the leadership and management of the service, the report identified that this area requires improvement. While a new manager had recently started with the intention of registering, there was a period without a registered manager. Audits had not consistently identified the concerns found during the inspection, leading to a breach in good governance. Meetings for staff and residents, and satisfaction surveys, were not always held consistently, indicating a need for stronger quality monitoring and governance systems to ensure continuous improvement and a consistently high standard of person-centred care.