Parker House Nursing Home

Risk assessments in place detailed risks, however some risk assessments needed more detail to ensure risks were clearly documented. People told us the management of some risks could be managed better. For example, ensuring people had easy access to moving and handling equipment.

There were enough staff to support people with their needs. However, we observed not all people received support in a timely manner. Staff received relevant training to meet people’s needs. Staff received support through supervision. Managers made sure recruitment checks were undertaken on all staff to ensure only those individuals that were deemed suitable and fit, would be employed to support people at the service.

The environment was monitored, and some action taken to ensure people were protected from risks relating to their environment. However, we found some environmental risks had not been identified prior to our assessment. The registered manager took immediate action following our feedback to protect people from the risk of harm. People told us they received their medicines safely. Staff received training in order to administer medicines safely and in line with the providers own policies. Audits in place were in their infancy and needed further embedding to ensure medicine administration processes were effective in keeping people safe.

People told us the home was clean and tidy. Staff recognised some areas of the home required further refurbishment to ensure they could be cleaned effectively, and work was ongoing. People and those important to them were supported to understand safeguarding and how to raise concerns when they didn’t feel safe. Staff understood their duty to protect people from abuse and knew how and when to report any concerns they had to managers. When concerns had been raised, managers reported these promptly to the relevant agencies and worked proactively with them, to make sure timely action was taken to safeguard people from further risk.

People’s care and treatment was effective due to their health, care and well-being needs being assessed with them. People’s support plans detailed their needs and preferences. People told us they were involved in the assessment process. However, monitoring of support plans required further development to ensure support provided was effective. Staff were aware people’s preferences.

People’s wishes and preferences were assessed and documented. People and those important to them were involved in planning and reviewing care. People told us they felt the registered manager was approachable and acted upon on any feedback. Staff supported people to raise concerns and provide feedback. Staff listened, respected and supported people to share their ideas. However, people were not consistently supported in a person-centred way. We found inconsistencies in how staff supported and communicated with people.

Governance systems in place required further development to ensure the quality and safety of the service was monitored effectively. The registered manager had oversight of the service, however systems in place required further work to ensure risks and areas for improvement were highlighted and any action taken in a timely manner. The registered manager was aware of the regulatory requirements and submitted notifications as required. There was an open culture at Parker House and staff morale was high. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager.