Parklands is a purpose built nursing home for up to 54 older people who may also have care needs associated with living with dementia. At time of the inspection there were 50 people living in the service.

The home had a registered manager in place. 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.

Staff delivered support effectively and care was provided in a way that promoted people’s independence and wellbeing, whilst people’s safety was ensured. Staff were recruited and employed upon completion of appropriate checks as part of a robust recruitment process. Sufficient numbers of staff enabled people’s individual needs to be met adequately. Trained staff dispensed medications and monitored people’s health satisfactorily.

Staff understood their responsibilities and how to keep people safe. People’s rights were also protected because management and staff understood the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We did however note that several staff had not undertaken refresher training in the last two years. In addition, we also found that several staff had not received formal supervision.

The manager and staff ensured access to healthcare services were readily available to people and worked with a range of health professionals, such as social workers, community mental health nurses and GPs to implement care and support plans.

Staff were respectful and compassionate towards people ensuring privacy and dignity was valued. People were supported in a person centred way by staff who understood their roles in relation to encouraging independence whilst mitigating potential risks. People were supported to identify their own interests and pursue them with the assistance of staff. Person centred social activities took place within the service.

Systems were in place to make sure that people’s views were gathered. These included regular meetings, direct interactions with people and questionnaires being distributed to people, relatives and healthcare professionals. The service was assisted to run effectively by the use of quality monitoring audits carried out by the manager and provider, which identified any improvements needed and actions were taken. A complaints procedure was in place and had been implemented appropriately by the management team.

Parklands Nursing Home is a purpose built nursing home for up to fifty-four older people who may or may not have dementia.

During our last inspection visit on the 8 January 2014 we found that improvements were required to the service and asked the provider to take actions. This inspection was to look at actions that had been taken and arrangements that are in place.

During our inspection on the 19 May 2014 we spoke with six of the people who used the service and two of their visiting relatives. We also spoke with the provider, manager and nine members of the staff team. We looked at six people's care records, four staff files, training records for staff, safeguarding policy and procedure and the complaints system.

We thought about what we found and asked the questions that we always ask; Is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

When we arrived at the service we were asked to sign the visitor's book and our identity was checked. This meant that people were protected from unwanted visitors or others who may pose a risk to their safety.

People told us that they felt safe living in Parklands Nursing Home. One person said, “It is really lovely here, I feel happy and safe here" Another person said, “I am very happy and I know that I can tell the staff any worries that I might have."

Staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse (SOVA), the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant that staff had been given the information that they needed to ensure that people were cared for safely.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they felt that the service met their needs. One person who used the service said, “The staff are very good and so caring, they help me with anything I need.” Another person said, “The staff are lovely and make sure I have what I need."

People's care records showed that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure their safety and welfare. The care records were well written and had been reviewed and updated monthly. This meant that staff had up to date information about how to meet people's needs.

Is the service caring?

Staff’s interaction with people who used the service was good. They spoke with people respectfully and supported them in a kind and caring way. Staff had a good knowledge of people’s likes and dislikes. People told us that all of the staff treated them well. One person said, “The staff are kind and caring.” One person's relatives we spoke to told us, "The staff are very good and very caring. They have cared for [Name of person] very well."

People told us that the staff treated them respectfully. People’s preferences and diverse needs had been recorded in their care files and care and support had been provided in accordance with their wishes. This showed that people were cared for by kind and caring staff.

Is the service responsive?

People we spoke with told us that the service had been responsive to their needs. One person told us, "If I want anything changed, I only have to ask and the staff and manager will help me."

People were supported to see other professionals such as a general practitioner, community dentist, chiropodist, optician, and district nurse. This showed that people’s general health care needs were met and that the service responded to people’s changing needs.

Is the service well-led?

People had been asked for their views and opinions on a daily basis. People told us that they received a good quality service. One person said, “I get lovely home cooked food, the staff are all very nice and are kind and friendly towards me.” Another said, “I am very pleased with the service and am very comfortable and happy with my room.” A visiting relative told us, “I can honestly say that this home is excellent, it is the best service by far. My relative is very happy here and is doing well.”

People who used the service and their relatives told us that the staff and manager asked them for their opinions on the quality of the service. We saw evidence of meetings held with staff, residents and relatives. The complaints procedure was clear and it showed clear timescales of when complaints would be responded to. People told us that they knew how to complain. This showed that there was an effective quality assurance system in place and that the service was well-led.

As part of the inspection process we spoke with the registered manager, the provider and staff. We also spoke with people who used the service and their families.

At the time of the inspection 54 people were living at Parklands Nursing Home. We found that the some of the people who used the service told us they were happy with the care and support provided. However we found that significant improvements were required to ensure that care plans and risk assessments were completed for all areas.

We also found that improvements were needed to ensure people's consent to care and treatment was sought appropriately. Improvements were required for the complaints system and also for supporting staff.

People we spoke with told us that they were happy with the care and treatment they received at Parklands Nursing Home. They said that they were involved in making decisions about the support and care they received and that staff treated them with respect and kindness.

We saw that care was well planned and risks to each person's health, safety and welfare were assessed and actions taken to minimise these risks.

Staff were trained and supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to a good standard. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to keep people safe and to report any poor practices appropriately.

There were efficient measures in place to regularly monitor the quality and safety of the service and to make improvements where needed.

People told us that they were involved in their plan of care and that they felt well treated and respected by the staff and the management; they also told us that staff were kind and caring and that, ‘nothing was too much trouble’ and that there was always plenty of staff around to help them. People also told us that any changes to their care plans were discussed with them before the changes took place.

People said that they felt safe whilst living at Parklands Nursing Home and that it is always clean and tidy and that the furniture was of a good quality and that the staff kept it clean. People said that they enjoyed their food and that they usually had plenty of choice. People told us that they were happy to raise any concerns and that they discussed any minor issues at their regular residents meetings.

The inspection of Parklands Nursing Home took place on the 19 and 20 November 2014. Parklands is a purpose built nursing home for up to 54 older people who may also have care needs associated with living with dementia.

A registered manager was 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. We saw that there were policies, procedures and information available in relation to the MCA and DoLS to ensure that people who could not make decisions for themselves were protected. The service was applying these safeguards appropriately. This was through assessing people’s capacity and making appropriate referrals to the supervisory body, (the Local Authority,) if people’s liberty was being restricted.

People were happy with the service they were receiving and we received many positive comments about the service and the staff team. We found that people’s health care needs were assessed, and care planned and delivered in a consistent way. Any risks associated with people’s care needs were assessed and plans were in place to minimise the risk as far as possible to keep people safe.

Staff clearly knew how to support people in ways that they wished to be supported. There were sufficient numbers of staff were being provided to meet people’s needs. Staff had the knowledge and skills that they needed to support people. They received training and on-going support to enable them to understand people’s diverse needs.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and worked in ways that demonstrated this. Staff asked for permission before providing any personal care or any activity. The social and daily activities provided suited people and met their individual needs. People were supported to make their own decisions about if they undertook activities or not. People’s preferences had been recorded and we saw that staff respected these.

People were able to complain or raise any concerns if they needed to. Where people had raised issues that these were taken seriously and dealt with appropriately. People could therefore feel confident that any concerns they had would be listened to. The service used a variety of ways to assess the quality and safety of the service that it provided. People using the service and their families were consulted with. The service undertook a range of monitoring and areas such as health and safety and medication were regularly audited. The management team at the service were well established and provided good and consistent leadership.