Park House

Updated 18 September 2024

Date of assessment: 24 Sep to 17 Oct 2024. Park House is a residential care home providing both personal and nursing care to up to 111 people. We undertook this responsive assessment as a result of emerging risk at the service. During the assessment, we assessed all of the quality statements in the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led key questions. We identified 7 breaches of the regulations including person centred care, dignity and respect, need for consent, safe treatment, premises and equipment, good governance and staffing. Safeguarding referrals were not always escalated appropriately and medicines were not always managed safely. Risks relating to infection prevention and control were not always managed safely and people's care plans did not contain sufficient information to support staff in keeping people safe. People and their relatives were not actively involved in contributing to and reviewing their care plans. As a result, people did not always receive effective person centred care. People had limited access to activities and were not supported to achieve meaningful outcomes. The provider was not working in accordance with the mental capacity act and mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had not always been undertaken. We observed there was not enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff told us there was a lack of communication between team members and gave mixed feedback on the management team being approachable and responsive. Governance systems to monitor the quality of care delivered were ineffective. Where issues had been identified, actions to rectify these were not always undertaken. In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

Updated 18 September 2024

People gave mixed feedback on the safety of the service. Some people felt they were supported by people who knew their needs well. However, some people felt that inconsistency in support staff meant their needs were not always met in a timely way. People told us they had concerns with their medicines and were unsure what medicines they were taking. People spoke positively about the responsiveness of staff when they needed support. However, some people told us there were not enough staff to meet their needs. People gave mixed feedback on the quality and choice of food. The majority of people told us they were offered choice in their daily lives, although some people mentioned that this was dependant on which staff were on duty. Most people said they were unaware of the care planning process and had not contributed to or reviewed their care plans. People told us they attended meetings so they could share their feedback, but these were infrequent at times. During the assessment, we observed people's privacy and dignity was not always promoted or respected, and people had limited access to activities and social stimulation.