Park House

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

We identified 1 breach of the legal regulations in this key question. This related to, dignity and respect. People gave mixed feedback on the quality and responsiveness of the staff who supported them. Staff did not always know the name or needs of the people they were supporting. We observed people's privacy and dignity was not always respected and people gave mixed feedback in this area. There was a lack of social stimulation between staff and people and records did not contain enough information regarding people's likes, dislikes and life history. People gave mixed feedback regarding being offered choice and control which promotes their independence. Processes did not consistently support people in exercising choice and control over their care, treatment and wellbeing. We observed there was not enough staff to attend to peoples needs, wishes and comfort. Staff told us their wellbeing was not considered, and staff morale was low.

This service scored 35 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We received mixed feedback in this area from people and relatives. Comments included, “Some staff are marvelous,” “They [staff] are very caring and understand my relatives needs,” “Some staff like me and some don't” and, “No real complaints, just some staff are nicer than others.”

Some staff referred to people by rooms numbers rather than names. One staff member spoken with did not know the name of the person they were providing support to. Another staff member described a person as being, “very picky”, when asked about food choices.

Partners confirmed staff understood the importance of supporting people with kindness, empathy and compassion. A partner said, "I have no concerns, staff seem to treat people with kindness, compassion and dignity. They seem well cared for." However, partners also noted due to frequent staff changes, people did not always receive care and support from familiar staff, often resulting in poor communication.

Staff had not always ensured people’s dignity was fully maintained. We saw from a corridor that staff were providing support to a person with their personal care, however they had not closed the door to maintain the person’s privacy. Signage in people’s rooms relating to their continence needs was also visible to people walking past. People’s personal information was not always stored securely. We observed personal information being stored in communal areas including kitchenette areas and on the nurse’s station. We observed some positive interactions between staff and people however, some staff talked about people in a negative way, we observed one staff member stating, “What’s up with you today.” We observed people laying in bed with doors open in an undignified position.

People and relatives gave mixed feedback in this area. When asked if staff respect people’s needs and preferences, a person told us, “Yes I think so, they [staff] are always nice to me." However, others said, "I have been here when my relative was asked what they wanted for lunch, but then something different was given to them" and "We have had a problem with clothes going missing even though they were labelled."

Staff could explain people’s care and support needs but did not know people as individuals such as their life history as care plans lacked person-centred details.

Staff did not always positively interact with people living in the service. During mealtimes we observed little interaction or social stimulation. The support provided appeared very task orientated.

Processes did not always ensure people were treated as individuals in their day-to-say care and support. Lack of engagement with people and their relatives in the development of care plans meant personal information regarding people's likes, preferences and needs was not always incorporated in peoples care and support.

People gave mixed feedback regarding being offered choice and control which promoted their independence. The majority of people told us they were able to exercise choice in relation to personal care, nutrition and clothing. However, some people told us they were not regularly offered choices, or that when a choice was made, this was not always adhered to by support staff.

Staff told us they supported people to be as independent as they were able. However, with high number of agency staff they found their time was taken away by supporting agency staff on shift. One staff member said, “We use agency one or two on every shift and it is hard. I have to help them with lots of things.”

We observed minimal activities taking place within the home. We observed some people not being provided with a choice at mealtimes. we observed 2 people had food placed in front of them whilst they slept. No interactions were observed. Not all bedrooms had photographs or names on to support people to remain independent, particularly some people living with dementia who can find it difficult to be orientated to place.

Processes did not consistently support people in exercising choice and control over their care, treatment and wellbeing. Care records lacked evidence that people had been involved in devising their care plan to ensure their views were incorporated. Processes did not ensure people had access to appropriate activities and the local community to promote and support independence, health and wellbeing. Staffing levels within the home did not allow for people to be supported out in the community. There was no evidence within the rotas extra staff were provided with time to allow people to be supported to access the community. Family members could visit with no restrictions.

People and relatives gave mixed feedback regarding the responsiveness of staff. Some people told us staff responded promptly to call bells. Comments included, “They [staff] arrive on the dot if I need them” and, “I don't press the call bell often, but they [staff] come quick when I do.” However, other people said, “I have to go looking for staff to raise issues to” and “They [staff] don’t come quick if we press the call bell. It also depends what staff are on.”

Staff told us how they knew people well and were able to respond to people’s needs after getting to know more about the person. Staff recognised that on occasions people did have to wait for care and support as they were busy.

We observed there was not enough staff to attend to peoples needs, wishes and comfort. We observed people eating cold meals as the staff could not provide the support in a timely manner when food was hot. We observed staff not effectively responding to peoples needs. When a person requested support, limited time was spent trying to establish what was required.

Staff told us their wellbeing was not considered, and staff morale was low. Staff consistently told us that they felt the provider did not trust them. One staff member told us, “If you sit with a resident the manager will ask why you are sitting down. They are watching you on the cameras.”

Processes, such as staff supervision and appraisal were not always completed this meant staff did not have regular opportunities to provide feedback, raise concerns and suggest ways to improve the service or staff experiences. Staff raised concerns regarding the working relationships between the management team and the care staff which was impacting staffs wellbeing. CCTV had recently been installed, staff informed us this had, had a negative impact of staff morale as they felt it had been installed to monitor staffs performance. We raised this with the manager who informed us the CCTV was installed to help with monitoring unwitnessed falls to try and mitigate risks.