CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 66 Park Lane
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2018
66 Park Lane is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with end-of-life wishes not yet included in every care plan.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 16 July 2018. One inspector spoke with three people using the service, staff and the registered manager. They also checked care records, medicines, staff records and how the home was managed.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were protected from abuse, risks were managed, staffing levels were sufficient and medicines were handled safely.
Inspectors found that staff knew people well and treated them with kindness and respect. People had choice over their daily lives, received personalised support and were helped to stay in touch with family and community activities. The home remained Good, as it had been at the previous inspection.
Safe medicines practice
Inspectors found that medicines were stored and recorded correctly. Staff were trained and people were supported to take more responsibility for their medicines where appropriate.
“We reviewed the medicines charts and found all stocks and balances were in order, medicines were stored correctly and medicine administration records (MARs) were completed correctly with no errors or omissions.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
People were encouraged to make decisions and staff respected their privacy, dignity, beliefs and relationships.
“Staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion.” from the report
Personalised activities
People had detailed care plans and could choose how to spend their days. Activities included daily living skills, exercise, leisure, health support and voluntary work.
“We saw people had a busy weekly programme of activities which including regular scheduled activities as well as ad hoc sessions where people choose what they wanted to do during those times.” from the report
Supportive leadership
Staff described an open team culture where they could share ideas and raise concerns. The home used audits and feedback to improve its service.
“An inclusive positive culture had been developed at the service.” from the report
Improved recruitment checks
The previous inspection found that some employment records did not show a robust recruitment process. This inspection found the required checks had been completed.
“At this inspection records confirmed the provider had undertaken robust employment checks to ensure the suitability of staff employed.” from the report
End-of-life wishes
minorEnd-of-life care information was not included in all current care plans. The manager had information available, and one person's preferences had been recorded.
“We discussed end of life care with the registered manager as this had not been included in all the current care plans.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure my relative's end-of-life wishes are discussed and recorded in their care plan?
- 02How would you support my relative to take part in activities that match their interests and daily living goals?
- 03How do you review risks if my relative's mental health or behaviour changes?
- 04How will my relative be involved in decisions about their care and given as much independence as possible?
- 05How do you work with mental health, medical and social care professionals when my relative's needs change?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service covering all five CQC questions, although inspectors reviewed one person's care records and sampled one other person's records. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 August 2018 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 66 Park Lane
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 February 2012.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.