Park House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 25 older people. There were 21 people living in the home at the time of our visit. This was an unannounced inspection. The service also provided three ‘beds with care’. This is a system where a home works with the hospitals to supply beds for people on a temporary basis for reablement or palliative care. There are qualified nurses who visit these services regularly to provide further support to the care staff.

There was not a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The current manager was in the process of undergoing the registration process through CQC, and had been in post since May 2016.

Staff understood what protecting people from harm or abuse was, and this was reflected in training records. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe and actions were taken when they were concerned about people’s safety. People were safely supported to take their medicines by trained staff.

There were detailed risk assessments within care records concerning risks associated with individuals. These included guidance for staff on how to mitigate these risks. Staff were confident in reporting incidents and accidents should they occur. The appropriate checks and maintenance in relation to people’s living environment were carried out. There were effective processes in place to minimise risk of harm.

Safe recruitment processes were in place to ensure that people employed in the service were deemed suitable for the role. There were enough staff to keep people safe.

People told us and our observations showed that staff were kind and caring. Staff had good knowledge about the people they cared for and understood how to meet their needs. Feedback from people and their relatives about the care they received was complimentary.

People planned their care with staff and relatives, and staff respected privacy and dignity. People were supported to access healthcare wherever necessary and in a timely manner, with prompt action taken in response to changes to a person’s health needs.

Staff supported some people to follow their interests and hobbies. There was regular visiting entertainment; however there was not as much stimulation for people who preferred to stay in their rooms.

People received enough to eat and drink, and received specialist diets in line with recommendations such as speech and language therapy. Food and drink was available throughout the day, and people received a good choice of meals. Staff also supported people to have their own food and drink which they purchased themselves when they wished.

Staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent to the care they were providing to enable people to be cared for in the way they wished. Some people had authorisations applied for the lawful deprivation of their liberty (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and staff were able to explain how they promoted choice where people had variable capacity. The home complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Staff were motivated and spoke positively about their job and understood the importance of providing a high standard of care to the people living in the service. Staff told us that there was good teamwork within the service, and that they felt supported in their roles.

The service had quality assurance systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the service. These included auditing systems and ways of gaining feedback from people about the home.

We conducted this inspection to establish the following about Park House: Was the service safe? Was it effective? Was it caring? Was it responsive and was it well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. This summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, the staff supporting them, people’s relatives and from reviewing records.

Is the service safe?

People were very satisfied with how their support and care needs were being met. There was a well established system of risk assessment in place to support people's needs. No-one we spoke with living in the home had experienced feeling unsafe or unsure. Having regular staff added to this sense of security and safety.

We found staff were trained and supported to safely do their job. The provider managed a rolling programme of training and staff could also ask for additional training if required.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] which applies to care services. No applications have needed to be submitted. Adequate policies and procedures were in place relating to DoLS. Staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

We found the home was well maintained and clean. This helped reduce the risk of injury or harm.

We reviewed staff rotas and found that there were sufficient staff on duty during the day and night to help keep people safe and free from harm.

People were provided with safe and appropriate support and care by a sufficient number of staff. People who used the service said that they had confidence in the capabilities of members of staff.

Is the service effective?

Park House demonstrated that it took great care to ensure the care and wellbeing of the people who used the service. This was shown in individual care plans, continuing risk assessments and daily records. Where it had been possible, we saw evidence of people being involved in decisions about their care and that their needs and wishes were known. We saw that members of staff actively consult people about their care and effectively carried out people’s stated wishes.

We noted that other healthcare professionals worked with the home to ensure continuity of care where necessary.

People who used the service were satisfied with how they were actively consulted about their support, care and treatment.

Is the service caring?

People told us that they were very satisfied with the standard and quality of their support and care. By observing staff we found them to be kind, considerate and respectful towards people living in the home.

We noted that people were supported respectfully and courteously. We also noted that people were regularly spoken with in a polite manner by staff. Smiles and words of comfort were offered and interactions seen to be understood. Care and support provided was individual and informative.

Staff were aware of people's preferences, interests and needs.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that the home responded to people on an individual basis. People’s likes/dislikes were acted on and we saw that every effort was made to put the interests and wellbeing of the individual first. One person we spoke with said “I told them I wanted to get my hair done today. They arranged for the hairdresser to come in. That's nice, isn't it."

We noted that whilst staff were busy during the inspection that they still took time out to re-assure people, interact with them and generally engage with them.

Food was home cooked, could be eaten in private or in the dining room. People were free to choose where they ate.

Park House had a full and varied programme of activities for people to take part in, should they wish to.

We saw that people’s individual care and treatment needs were assessed and planned for. Their individual choices and preferences regarding their support and care were valued. In addition, there was an effective system in place to respond to people’s complaints, should it be needed.

Is the service well led?

The quality assurance system in place was robust. Staff said that they felt supported and trained to safely do their job.

We found that people’s personal care records, and other records kept in the home, were accurate, safe and filed appropriately and securely.

Members of staff and people who used the service were provided with both formal and informal opportunities to share their views about the standard and quality of the service provision, and these were acted on, where needed.

The service was regularly audited and reviewed by the provider and prompt action taken if shortfalls were identified.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

During our inspection, we spoke with nine people who used the service and with four members of staff working on the day of our inspection.

People who used the service that we spoke with were happy with the care and support received. One person told us, "Everyone is very nice, it’s first class." Another person we spoke with told us that, "I can always ask if I want anything."

We looked at the care records of three people who used the service. These were comprehensive and detailed the health and social care needs of the person and how any possible risks were minimised.

The premises were clean and well maintained and recent improvements had included a new dining room floor and a new bath which was suitable for people with mobility difficulties.

The staff we spoke with told us about the range of training they had received and the support that management gave them. This meant they had the necessary skills to provide the care and support needed by the people who used the service.

We discussed the complaints procedures in place with people who used the service and with the provider. People told us they knew how to raise concerns but had not needed to do so.

People told us they liked living at this home. One person said, “It's brilliant”, another said that they "couldn't fault it". People told us they were well cared for and that the food was good.

One person told us about some of the activities they enjoyed which included reading, playing bingo and visiting local attractions such as the Sea Life centre.

The people we spoke with all told us they had regular visitors and that staff were

kind and helped them with day to day care and with their medication.

People told us they liked living at this home. One person said, “This place couldn’t be better. The staff are lovely and kind.” People described how they were able to make choices about how they lived and their choices were always respected by staff. We were told that the food was good and plentiful, with choices available at every meal.

The people we spoke with said they could have visitors whenever they wished and their visitors were always made welcome by the staff. They told us there were not many activities they liked to join in with, although they enjoyed being able to entertain friends and to go out with them from time to time.

We were told that staff were very kind and helped to support people when they needed help. People said staff were always polite and made they feel respected and special.