Parkfield Grange

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions. They had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

People were supported by enough staff with the skills, knowledge and experience to keep them safe and meet their needs. Staff completed training and demonstrated a commitment to delivering person-centred care. Risks were assessed and detailed care plans guided staff in reducing risks while supporting individual needs and preferences., We saw staff following care plans and risk assessments in practice. Accidents and incidents were managed appropriately, reviewed by management, and used to identify trends, learning and actions to reduce recurrence. The home was clean, well maintained and equipped with effective systems to monitor fire safety, infection prevention and control, equipment servicing and environmental risks. Safeguarding systems protected people from abuse, staff completed safeguarding training, and the service worked closely with external agencies to reduce the risk of harm. Overall, medicines were managed and administered safely, and supported by training, oversight and monitoring.

People’s needs were assessed before moving into the home and reviewed regularly. The registered manager promoted evidence-based care, particularly in relation to dementia care. Staff worked effectively with healthcare professionals and other agencies to support positive outcomes for people.

People were supported by kind, caring staff who treated them with dignity and respect. Staff encouraged independence and provided support when needed. During our visit, we observed positive interactions between people and staff, including participation in group activities.

People consistently received person-centred care from staff who knew them well. Care reflected individual preferences and recognised protected characteristics, helping to promote equity in people's experiences and outcomes. The service had received many compliments, and complaints were managed promptly and appropriately.

The service had a positive, inclusive culture where staff viewed the home as people's home and felt privileged to support them. Staff were committed to helping people achieve the best possible quality of life. The registered manager was open, responsive and engaged throughout the assessment process, acting promptly on feedback and making improvements where needed. Governance systems were well established and supported effective oversight of the home.