Park View

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 4 June 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of Assessment: 21 April to 29 April 2026. Park View is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to autistic people and/or people who have a learning disability. The home is based in a residential area within walking distance of the town centre and sea front. The service is registered to accommodate up to 4 people. At the time of the inspection 3 people were living in the main house and 1 person was living in the self-contained annex.We 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. This was a targeted inspection to follow up on the breaches of regulation identified at the last inspections.

At our previous inspection we had found breaches of regulation. At this inspection we found improvements had been made relating to safe care and treatment, medicines and need for consent. The service was no longer in breach of these regulations.The provider was also previously in breach of the legal regulation relating to governance and the provider remains in breach of this regulation. Since the last inspection the provider had taken action to put systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, and we found no evidence that people had been placed at risk of harm. However, some of these systems were not fully embedded and were not consistently effective in monitoring the quality and safety of the service or in ensuring that records were properly and accurately maintained. As such, some shortfalls in governance systems remained resulting in a continued breach of regulation in good governance.

The provider had made some improvements to learning from incidents, but analysis of trends and timely learning was not always effective. Safeguarding systems were not robust or consistently effective, resulting in unclear actions and risks not always being promptly addressed.Risk management had improved overall, but some risk mitigation required to be recorded, and behaviour support plans required further development to be fully effective and clear for staff.Medicines and infection control were managed safely.People’s needs had been assessed and reviewed, with care documentation reflecting individual preferences and involving relatives and representatives.Consent processes followed the Mental Capacity Act, with people, their relatives or representatives involved in decision-making. The provider had begun monitoring outcomes more effectively, with improved reviews and involvement from people and professionals.Care and support were planned and delivered in line with legislation and good practice, supporting activities and family contact.