This inspection took place on 23 October 2018 and was unannounced.

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

Park Grove is registered to provide accommodation for up to 32 people who require nursing or personal care. All accommodation at the service is provided on a single room basis, although there is one double room available for a couple or anyone who wishes to share. Facilities at the service include several communal lounge areas, a dining room and safe accessible garden areas. There were 25 people who lived at the service at the time of the inspection.

There was a new manager who had applied to become a registered manager. The previous registered manager de-registered in September 2018 after terminating their employment at Park Grove in August 2018. 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.

During this inspection we found shortfalls in relation to environment safety, seeking consent, staff training and supervision and arrangements for checking the quality of the care. These were breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, in relation to: safe care and treatment, need for consent, staffing and good governance. We also found one breach of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009, in relation to notification of other incidents. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Our last inspection of Park Grove was carried out 06 January 2016. At that time, we rated the service as overall 'good' with the responsive domain being 'requires improvement'. There were no breaches of the regulations at that time. At this inspection the rating had deteriorated to overall 'requires improvement'.

We found that the service had procedures in place for protecting people from abuse, neglect and discrimination. However, we also found that staff had not received training in safeguarding adults that was in line with the local safeguarding authority alert processes. This meant that the provider had not made sure staff understood how make a safeguarding alert and kept them up to date with changing legislation and best practice principles.

The provider followed safe recruitment processes to ensure that new staff were of good character before employed.

We looked at accident and incident records and found that people were not always safeguarded following an unwitnessed fall. The manager showed us a new system they were introducing for identification, review and monitoring of accidents and incidents.

We found that people who lived at the service were accurately risk assessed and care plans had been formulated to show how people would be protected against identified risk. The service was adequately staffed and people told us that they felt safe and well supported.

We looked at the environmental risk assessments and maintenance records and found a clear audit trail had not been sustained. We discussed this with the provider who told us that improved record keeping would be immediately introduced. We saw that the environment was safe and clean. We checked how the provider protected people from the risk of exposure to fire and how they planned contingency strategies in the event of an emergency evacuation. Our checks showed that the provider did not have robust planning in place for emergency evacuation and some routine fire prevention checks had not been recorded.

We found that people received their medicines in a safe and proper

Mr and Mrs K Banks are registered to provide accommodation for up to 32 people who require nursing or personal care at Park Grove. All accommodation at the home is provided on a single room basis, although there is one double room available for a couple or anyone who wishes to share. Facilities at the service include several communal lounge areas, a dining room and safe, accessible garden areas. There are various aids and adaptations available to support people to maintain their independence. There were 26 people using the service at the time of the inspection.

The last inspection of the service took place on 25 July 2013. At this inspection the provider was found to be compliant with all the areas we assessed.

This inspection took place on 6 January 2016 and was unannounced.

We were assisted throughout the inspection by the providers and manager. At the time of the inspection the manager of the service was going through the process of registration with the Commission. 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.

We found that people were cared for in a safe manner. Any risks to their health or wellbeing were identified and addressed through risk assessment and care planning processes. People’s health care needs were carefully monitored and addressed in partnership with community health care professionals. Peeps (Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans) were completed for each person but not located in a central location. We made a recommendation about this.

The manager demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) legislation. The manager was aware of the procedures to be followed in the event that a person may not be able to consent to some aspects of their care to help ensure their legal rights were protected. However, staff understanding of this area was variable. We discussed this with the manager who was able to provide evidence that training for all staff was arranged in the near future. We made a recommendation about this.

People expressed satisfaction with daily life at the home and were complimentary about the meals provided. People’s views about the activities programme were mixed. Some told us they would like to see more variety. We made a recommendation about this.

We received very positive feedback about the service provided at Park Grove, from people who used the service, their relatives and community professionals. People described a safe, effective service and told us they were confident staff had the skills to meet their needs. People told us the staff team were kind and compassionate and cared for people in a manner that promoted their privacy and dignity. The management team, including the providers, were described as responsive and approachable.

There was an effective system in place to manage people’s medicines safely. Medicines were appropriately stored and staff worked in accordance with clear guidance to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

Managers and care staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding procedures and the action to be taken in the event that any safeguarding concerns were identified. In addition, staff were very confident they would be fully supported by managers, should they be in the position where they were required to report such a concern.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and the support they required. Staff were also fully aware of people’s individual wishes and preferred daily routines. All but one care plan we viewed contained a good level of information about the person’s daily care needs and the things that were important to them. The care plan missing this s

People told us they were very happy and cared for very well by the staff. “They are there when needed, day and night. We get well looked after”. And “The manager is very caring and the staff are pleasant and very helpful. They are always about to help you in any way they can”. Changes in people’s needs were identified and planned for with clear guidance as to the level and type of support people required.

People had care plans that promoted a person centred approach to their care. Staff were attentive to peoples request for assistance.

Staff knew how to care for people at risk of falling, developing pressure ulcers or may not eat enough.

People we spoke to told us they felt safe in the home. One person said, “I feel safe with the staff more than I did when I was at home alone”.

People got their medicines safely and when they needed them. People were protected against the risks associated with medicine handling because staff had been trained and medicines were kept secure.

People who use the service benefit from staff who were well trained and had been subject to the necessary character checks to ensure they were fit, trustworthy, qualified and physically and mentally fit to do their job.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

Records were kept secure and fit for purpose to protect people from unsafe or inappropriate care and support.

People had their needs assessed. Where people lacked capacity following an assessment to make the best choices, their interests was protected. Procedures were followed to get valid consent were followed in practice and monitored.

People told us staff treated them well. Staff spoke to them respectfully, communicated well and appropriately and generally considered all their needs. One person told us, “I do enjoy living here. The staff are very good. If I need anything they will get it for me. I enjoy the exercise lady visiting. It gets the arms going, nothing too strenuous”. Another person told us, “I am quite independent and can manage to do most things for myself. If I need help I get it. The staff are always at hand. We get out and about. We’re going to the lights at Blackpool. That brings back memories. We used to take the children when they were little”. We were told there were no institutional practices and people were involved in making decisions regarding their day to day care.

Records showed staff followed care plans and responded to people's needs as required. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their dignity when providing support. People were supported to live as valued citizens within the home and the wider community. Staffing levels were very good.

We spoke with three people about how the home managed their medicines. Everyone we spoke with was happy with the arrangements in place. One person told us that they thought medicines were “kept safely”. A second person confirmed that care workers applied their creams for them.

One person we spoke with had chosen to self-administer some of their own medicines. They showed us that they had everything they needed, and had enough information about their medicines.

People wishing to self-administer medicines were, where possible, supported to do so. However, as seen at our previous visit the level of support needed to safely self-administer medication and the responsibility of the care worker was not clearly defined.

We spoke with three people about the homes medicines arrangements. Two people we spoke with had chosen to manage some of their own medicines. They told us they were happy with the arrangements in place although one person had recently 'run out' of one of their self-administered medicines. A third person told us that staff applied their eye drops for them when they needed them.

People told us they were happy living in the home and they were consulted about their needs and preferences. They said they were able to express their views and their opinions were taken seriously and acted upon. One person said, “The staff look after us very well, they are all very nice”. People spoken with felt they were well cared for and the staff respected their rights to privacy, dignity and independence. People were supported to participate in a variety of activities both inside and outside the home.

People said they received appropriate support with their medication. However, we found concerns in the way in which some medication was managed and recorded.

Visitors were welcome in the home at any time and people said they were supported to maintain good contact with their family and friends. Relatives spoken with were very satisfied with the quality of care provided and felt that their family members were looked after in a caring and sensitive manner.

People made positive comments about the staff team and felt they could talk to any of the staff or the owner if they had a problem or query.