Parkfield House Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of Regulation 9 (person-centred care) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s needs had not always been assessed or planned for. Individual care plans were not always person-centred, did not contain enough details about how to meet their needs and had not always been updated to reflect changes in their needs. During our discussions with staff, 2 members of staff told us conflicting information about a person’s needs. When we checked the care plan and assessments, their needs had not been clearly recorded and therefore staff did not have the correct information to refer to. Failure to assess and plan for people’s needs put them at risk of receiving inappropriate care and treatment.

People did not always receive good quality care in line with best practice. For example, assessments of their nutritional needs were not always accurate or clear. These did not always include information about specialist diets or health conditions that affected people’s diets. There was not enough guidance for staff to ensure that evidence-based care was followed. Information about people’s continence needs was conflicting and there was a lack of clear guidance for staff. This also meant there was a risk that the care they received was not suitable.

People using the service told us they mostly liked the food and were given choices. One person said, “The food is very good here.’’ The catering staff told us they offered choices based on people’s preferences. They understood about providing calorie rich diets for people who needed these. People were offered regular drinks. However, records indicated there were sometimes long gaps between meals and snacks for some people.

Staff undertook a range of training relevant to their roles. However, nurses told us they needed more support and training regarding some nursing interventions.

The staff worked closely with other healthcare professionals. They shared information with them and followed their advice when needed. Comments from external professionals included, “We have excellent communication with the staff, and they work very well together as a team’’ and “We have a good relationship with the staff and together we feel they are able to provide good care for the residents.''

People’s healthcare needs had not always been recorded and planned for. Assessments and care plans did not always include information about symptoms staff needed to be aware of to monitor people’s health. This meant there was a risk they may not receive the right support. However, people felt their healthcare needs were being met. They had opportunities to see healthcare professionals when needed and were happy with the care and support they received.

People’s care was not always clearly monitored. Records to show what people had eaten, drunk, when they were repositioned, and care interventions were not always completed clearly or accurately by staff. Some records indicated gaps in people’s care interventions. These gaps had not been investigated which meant the provider was not always able to assess whether people’s needs had been met.

People consented to their care. The provider had assessed people’s mental capacity to make decisions. They obtained consent and made sure choices were presented in a way which people could understand and consent to. For people who lacked the mental capacity to make decisions, the staff had consulted with their representatives to make sure decisions were made in their best interests.