This inspection took place on 22 February 2017 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and the provider did not know we would be visiting.

Parklands Nursing Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Parklands Nursing Home provides accommodation with personal care and nursing for up to 53 older people (East Park Court), people with a dementia type illness (Penshaw Court) and young people with a physical disability (West Park Court). On the day of our inspection there were 51 people using the service. Facilities included several lounges and dining rooms, communal bathrooms, shower rooms and toilets, a hairdressing room, a large well maintained communal garden, a sensory garden and a spacious reception area.

The registered manager had left the service in November 2017. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC 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. At the time of our inspection the operational support manager was acting as the manager. Recruitment for a new registered manager was in progress.

Parklands Nursing Home was last inspected by CQC on 3 November 2015 and was rated Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of ‘Good’ and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risk or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The home was clean spacious and suitable for the people who used the service. The provider had procedures in place for managing the maintenance of the premises and appropriate health and safety checks had been carried out.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and risk assessments were in place. The manager understood their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding and staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe management and administration of medicines.

The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Staff were supported to provide care to people who used the service through a range of mandatory and specialised training, supervision and appraisal.

People who used the service and their relatives were complimentary about the standard of care at Parklands Nursing Home.

People were treated with respect and the staff understood how to provide care in a dignified manner and respected people’s right to privacy. Staff supported and helped to maintain people’s independence. People were encouraged to care for themselves where possible.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

Care records showed people’s needs were assessed before they started using the service. Care plans and risk assessments were in place where required and daily records were up to date. Care plans were written in a person centred way and were reviewed regularly.

Staff supported people to eat and drink at meal times when required and people’s weight and nutrition was closely monitored.

People who used the service had access to healthcare services and received ongoing healthcare support.

People had access to a range of activities in the home and within the local community.

The provider had an effective complaints procedure

This inspection took place on 3 November 2015 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and the provider did not know we would be visiting. The home had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC 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.

Parklands Nursing Home was last inspected by CQC on 27 June 2014 and was compliant with the regulations in force at the time.

Parklands Nursing Home is situated in the village of Seaham, County Durham. The home is a converted school house set in its own grounds, in a quiet residential area. It provides accommodation with personal care and nursing for up to 53 older people, people with a dementia type illness and young people with a physical disability. On the day of our inspection there were 46 people using the service. The home comprised of 53 bedrooms, the majority of which were en-suite. Facilities included several lounges and dining rooms, communal bathrooms, shower rooms and toilets, a hairdressers and a smoke room.

People who used the service and their relatives were complimentary about the standard of care at Parklands Nursing Home. We saw staff supporting and helping to maintain people’s independence. People were encouraged to care for themselves where possible. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people using the service.

Training records were up to date and staff received supervisions and appraisals, which meant that staff were properly supported to provide care to people who used the service.

The layout of the building provided adequate space for people with walking aids or wheelchairs to mobilise safely around the home.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty were being met.

All the care records we looked at contained evidence of consent.

People were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.

People had access to food and drink throughout the day and we saw staff supporting people at meal times when required.

People who used the service had access to a range of activities in the home.

All the care records we looked at showed people’s needs were assessed. Care plans and risk assessments were in place when required and daily records were up to date. Care plans were written in a person centred way and were reviewed regularly.

We saw staff used a range of assessment tools and kept clear records about how care was to be delivered and people who used the service had access to healthcare services and received ongoing healthcare support.

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place and complaints were fully investigated.

The provider had a robust quality assurance system in place and gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources.

This inspection was carried out by one inspector. We met with eight people who used the service and observed their experiences of care to support our inspection. We spoke with the registered manager, seven care and nursing staff, three relatives and one health care professional.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask:-

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary, please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were cared for in an environment that was clean and hygienic. People told us that they were happy living at the home and were supported to remain independent as safely as possible. They also told us that their needs were met because staff supported them to do the things they wanted to do.

Appropriate risk assessments were in place, and the registered manager had suitable arrangements to safeguard people from foreseeable emergencies.

People told us that they felt safe living at the home and their relatives confirmed this.

We saw safeguarding procedures were in place and that staff understood how to safeguard the people that they supported. At the time of the inspection, there was one person at the home subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This meant that one person who lacked capacity received the care or treatment that they required even if this required some restriction on their freedom.

There were regular checks and audits completed to make sure that the building and procedures were maintained and further improved and provided a safe environment for people to live in.

Is the service effective?

All of the people we spoke with and their relatives or carers, told us that they were happy with the care that was delivered and their needs were met. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they (staff) had a good understanding of people’s care and support needs and that they knew them well, which meant that people received an effective service.

Is the service caring?

We asked eight people if they had any concerns about the care provided by the home and they told us that were happy with the care provided and that the staff were caring. One relative told us, “It was refurbished a little while back, and staff do a good job to keep it clean and look after my relative.”

Observations during the visit showed staff were compassionate and caring to the people they supported. The home was busy during the day with visitors attending and we found positive interactions taking place and staff responding in a thoughtful and kind manner to people who lived at the home and also to visitors.

Is the service responsive?

Information was collected by the service with regard to the person’s capacity and level of independence. Regular reviews were carried out with the person who used the service and their representative to make sure the person’s care and support needs had not changed. This helped ensure staff supplied the correct amount of care and support.

Information collected by the service also gave staff an insight into the interests, likes and dislikes and areas of importance to the people in their care. This meant that it helped staff to provide social activities that people could choose to be involved with.

People who lived at the home held regular meetings with staff to discuss their views on living at the home. This meant that people were involved in communications about the running of the home and the provider listened and took action. People we spoke with confirmed they felt that they were listened to and knew who to contact if they had a problem.

Is the service well-led?

There was a registered manager employed which meant that the home had effective and stable leadership.

People who used the service had regular contact from the registered manager and other senior staff to check their wellbeing. The quality of service provided by care givers was monitored and this was done through quality audits and also through meetings arranged with the people who used the service.

Staff were knowledgeable about the support needs of people and the services ethos of maintaining safe independence and involvement of the person whatever their level of need.

One relative told us that they were kept regularly updated by the staff team if any changes occurred. The relative told us, “Staff ring me if I need to know anything, or they speak to me when I visit.”