CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 362 Park Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The person felt safe and staff knew how to respond to abuse or other risks. Risk assessments, medicines systems, recruitment checks and safety checks were found to be effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and support, and worked with health services when needed. Inspectors noted that care records needed further development to reflect possible changes in the person's mental capacity.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew the person well and treated them with respect. The person was involved in decisions, daily tasks and setting goals for greater independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected the person's preferences and were reviewed. Staff supported relationships, hobbies, communication needs, community activities and access to a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers provided regular support and supervision for staff. Quality checks, meetings and feedback were used to monitor the service and make improvements.
What inspectors found, December 2019
362 Park Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some care records needing further development.
This was a planned inspection on 22 October 2019. One inspector spoke with the person living at the home, a relative and staff. They also reviewed one care plan, medicines records, staff files, safety checks and quality records.
The home supported one person with learning disabilities and/or autism. Inspectors found that the person felt safe, staff understood their needs, medicines were managed safely and risks were reviewed. The person was supported to make choices, build independence, maintain relationships and take part in community activities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating and the same rating for each area as at the previous inspection, published on 28 April 2017.
Safety and risk management
Risks were reviewed and recorded, with support designed to help the person remain as independent as possible. Medicines were stored, given and reviewed safely.
“Risks to the person's well-being and safety were assessed, recorded and kept up to date.” from the report
Skilled support
Staff received training specific to the person's needs, regular supervision and development support. They also worked with health professionals to support the person's wellbeing.
“Staff supported the person to maintain their health and well-being and access the healthcare they needed.” from the report
Personalised care
The care plan reflected the person's preferences, communication needs and goals. It was reviewed and updated when needed.
“Plans included goals the person wanted to achieve and had been updated where needed.” from the report
Management and checks
Managers were involved in the home and staff felt supported. Audits and checks were used to identify areas for improvement.
“Quality assurance systems were in place and used effectively to monitor key aspects of the service.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingInspectors said the care records did not fully reflect possible changes in the person's mental capacity. The registered manager said this would be addressed after the inspection.
“Further development of care records was required in order to reflect potential fluctuations in the person's mental capacity.” from the report
- 01How will you keep care records up to date if my relative's mental capacity changes?
- 02How do you assess whether a person can manage any of their own medicines, and how often is this reviewed?
- 03How will you support my relative to set goals and build independence in everyday life?
- 04How would you communicate with my relative if they need information in a particular format?
- 05How do you make sure staff have training and supervision specific to my relative's needs?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, and the ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, April 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care, but staff raised concerns about long shifts and lone working.
Inspectors visited on 8 and 10 February 2017. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. They also visited the provider's office on 14 February to check staff training and recruitment.
The home supported one person. Inspectors spoke with the person, a relative, the registered manager and staff. They reviewed care records, staffing rotas, health and safety procedures, recruitment files and other records.
The person was found to be safe, respected and involved in decisions about their care. Staff supported their health, meals, interests, relationships and independence. The home had systems to check quality and make improvements.
The overall rating was Good. All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The report did not identify any breaches of regulations.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to support the person when needed. Recruitment checks had been completed before staff started work.
“We found that there were enough staff available to support the person when they required it.” from the report
Person-centred support
The person helped shape their care plans and reviews. The home adapted meetings and planning to suit their preferences.
“The needs of the person using the service was at the centre of care that they received.” from the report
Respect and independence
Staff supported the person to make choices, keep their privacy and dignity, and build daily living skills.
“The person's dignity was promoted and they were respected.” from the report
Quality checks
The provider's checks found issues with risk assessments, medicines storage and care plans. Action was then taken to improve these areas.
“This demonstrated that systems and process were monitored to ensure that they were effective and improvements made as a result of findings.” from the report
Long shifts and lone working
needs fixingStaff said the shift pattern could be draining and that lone working made them feel vulnerable. They said they had raised this with the registered manager, but it had not been addressed at the time.
“It can be very draining. I work 14 hour shifts.” from the report
- 01What has changed about the 14-hour shifts since this inspection?
- 02How do you now protect staff who work alone and respond if they feel vulnerable?
- 03How do you check that every member of staff has read and understood the person's risk assessments?
- 04How are medicines stored and checked today?
- 05How will the person and their family be involved in reviewing care and raising concerns?
This was a planned inspection of the overall service, including visits on 8 and 10 February and a provider-office review of staff training and recruitment on 14 February. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 April 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of 362 Park Road
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 October 2015.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicestershire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.