Parkfield House Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of Regulation 10 (dignity and respect) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were not always treated with kindness and respect by staff. We witnessed some interactions, where staff spoke inappropriately about a person or dismissed their feelings and wishes. There were instances where people had to wait for care and staff did not show consideration for the distress this caused them. We also saw staff providing care without interacting with people, such as when they were supporting them at mealtimes. In 1 instance staff carried out an intrusive task in front of other people whilst the person was eating. Therefore, staff did not always respect people’s privacy or dignity. We discussed these instances with the registered manager who agreed to address the concerns with staff.

We also saw some kind and caring interactions. People told us they liked the staff, and some mentioned staff by name, telling us they were caring and thoughtful. Comments from people included, “I get on well with the carers”, “All the carers are very nice” and “The staff have been good with [person].” However, some people felt staff did not spend quality time with them. One person explained, “They don’t really have time to chat.”

People were not always treated as individuals. Staff did not always pay attention to people’s individual needs. For example, staff brought drinks for people, sometimes leaving these out of their reach and not checking back with them. A person had 4 untouched drinks left on their bedside table. Staff did not take unused drinks away, refresh these or encourage the person to have a drink. People were not always left with things to do, for example they were in bedrooms with no activities, no television, music or belongings they could reach. For some people the televisions were at low volume, with no subtitles and remote controls were not placed with them.

Some people told us choices were not always respected. People told us they were not always able to go to bed or get up in the morning at the time they wanted, with 1 person telling us they had recently been taken to bed at 4pm which they did not want. Another person told us they were woken at 6am, again, this was not their choice, and a third person explained they did not always get support to get up in the mornings until 10.30am which they felt was too late.

The provider employed activities staff. They provided a range of organised activities which people enjoyed. There were special events and people had engaged on projects, including writing and illustrating a book and an art exhibition. One person commented, “I like to come down to the events.’’ Some people told us they would like more support to pursue their interests outside of organised activities. People were supported to be independent when they were able. People had access to equipment which helped increase their independence and control, for example specialist crockery and mobility aids.

Staff did not always respond to people’s immediate needs. During our visit to the service, 1 person called for staff to support them with their continence needs. A staff member was nearby but they did not respond or react. We alerted a care worker to this. The care worker argued that the person did not need support and initially refused to help. In another incident a person expressed pain and anxiety during a care intervention. Staff did not initially respond or offer the person their prescribed pain relief. A person’s hearing aid was not working but staff had failed to check this when they placed this on the person and did not react when the person was struggling to communicate. We discussed these incidents with the registered manager who agreed to address these with the staff concerned and look at general learning for all staff.

People using the service told us staff generally responded when they needed help and support.

The provider supported staff wellbeing and created opportunities for career development and learning. Staff told us they felt well supported and happy in their work. There were regular team and individual staff meetings where staff had the opportunity to discuss about their work, key procedures and the service with their line manager. There were handovers of information between staff each shift to ensure they were well informed about any changes.