Park house is registered to provide personal care for up to 24 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 23 people living in the home. At the last inspection, in April 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the rating for the service remained Good.

People continued to receive safe care. Staff were appropriately recruited and there were enough staff to provide care and support to people to meet their needs. People were consistently protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.

The care that people received continued to be effective. Staff had access to the support, supervision, training and on-going professional development that they required to work effectively in their roles. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.

People developed positive relationships with the staff, who were caring and treated people with respect, kindness and courtesy. People had personalised plans of care in place to enable staff to provide consistent care and support in line with people’s personal preferences. People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had implemented effective systems to manage complaints.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The provider was also the registered manager and was a visible role model in the home. People, their relatives and staff told us that they had confidence in the provider’s ability to provide high quality managerial oversight and leadership to the home. Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.

Park house is registered to provide personal care for up to 24 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 23 people living in the home. At the last inspection, in April 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the rating for the service remained Good.

People continued to receive safe care. Staff were appropriately recruited and there were enough staff to provide care and support to people to meet their needs. People were consistently protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.

The care that people received continued to be effective. Staff had access to the support, supervision, training and on-going professional development that they required to work effectively in their roles. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.

People developed positive relationships with the staff, who were caring and treated people with respect, kindness and courtesy. People had personalised plans of care in place to enable staff to provide consistent care and support in line with people’s personal preferences. People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had implemented effective systems to manage complaints.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The provider was also the registered manager and was a visible role model in the home. People, their relatives and staff told us that they had confidence in the provider’s ability to provide high quality managerial oversight and leadership to the home. Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.