Park View Residential Home

The provider was in the process of having extensions built onto the 2 houses, which form the location. During this work, a reduced number of people were accommodated. The improvements being made included the installation of 2 lifts and additional wet rooms, which will improve accessibility for people with reduced mobility. New bedrooms with en-suites were being built and existing facilities including the garden, were being refurbished.

An assessment has been undertaken of a service that is used by autistic people or people with a learning disability but is not registered as a specialist service. We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of regular staff who had the required skills and knowledge to support people. There were robust processes to identify and support people at risk from abuse. Staff managed risks to people in the least restrictive way. Staff understood how best to work with people and support them. Staff told us, “We talk to people about their care plans and risk assessments. We sit and do them with the person and look at the mental health side.” Where people were identified as at significant risk of harm, staff took relevant actions and worked alongside partner agencies. Incidents and learning reviews were completed and findings were shared with staff. There were systems to ensure the environment and equipment were safe. The provider had taken actions to manage the risks associated with the building works and reacted quickly when any unforeseen issues arose. People’s medicines were managed safely. Where people were prescribed high risk medicines, risk assessments and control measures were in place.

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 that 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. Staff had completed relevant training and understood when DoLS applications were required. They sought people’s consent for their care and ensured people had access to advocacy services where needed.

People’s care needs were assessed and the planning of their care and support reflected their identified needs and protected characteristics. Staff provided people with information and support to enable them to remain as mentally and physically well as possible. People’s outcomes from their care were monitored as part of regular reviews of their care. Staff recognised outcomes looked different for everyone and whilst some people planned to move onto greater independence, for other people their outcomes were smaller but significant to them. Staff said, “When you look back at the little things you have done with people you see what they have achieved.” There was not an activities person in post at the time of the inspection. In the interim staff provided people with internal activities and there were external entertainers.

Staff were kind and caring to people, they were concerned about people's comfort and welfare. Staff were compassionate and responsive when supporting a person who was unwell. They used relevant tools to monitor the person, whilst advocating for them and ensuring their welfare and providing them with regular reassurance.

Staff understood each person and how their diagnosis impacted them and used this knowledge to work effectively with them. Staff explained how they worked with people to understand the risks of refusing aspects of their personal care and how they tailored their interventions to the person to engage them. Staff told us they were provided with good mental health training and said there was enough information to enable them to provide person centred care. Staff also undertook training in equality and diversity, dementia awareness and learning disability and autism.

The registered manager had created a positive, compassionate, listening culture that promoted trust and understanding between people and the staff who supported them. They were hands on in their approach and actively involved in the day-to-day running of the service. There was a governance schedule to provide management oversight and quality assurance across a range of aspects of the service. When any gaps were identified, swift action was taken. There was a focus on continuous learning and improvement. The registered manager kept their own knowledge up to date and staff were encouraged to learn and develop themselves professionally. The registered manager also provided social care students from the local college with work placements. This provided them with opportunities to both work with and learn about people’s support needs and life experiences.