CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Althea Park House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The previous Safe rating was Good, but it was not reviewed in full. Inspectors found clear risk plans, trained staff and appropriate reviews after incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Inspected but not rated; the previous Good rating remained, and inspectors found people were protected from the specific risks checked.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 9 and 15 September 2021. Inspectors checked concerns about people leaving the home and putting themselves at risk of harm. They also checked infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found risk plans were clear and included people's views. Staff understood how to respond to self-injury and knew when other agencies might be needed. Incidents were reviewed, and health professionals were involved in decisions about people's safety.
The home was not given a new rating because this inspection did not cover the whole Safe question. The previous overall rating and Safe rating were Good. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from the concerns checked.
Clear risk planning
People had risk plans that included their views, identified risks and set out how staff should respond.
“People had risk management plans which included their input and identified areas and levels of risk as well as planned interventions.” from the report
Staff understood self-injury risks
Staff had specific training and said they felt confident intervening when someone self-injured.
“Staff were trained and confident on how to intervene when people self-injured.” from the report
Incidents were reviewed
The service reviewed incidents and involved health professionals when observation levels or other safety measures needed to change.
“Where incidents occurred, the service assessed their response and introduce increased levels of observations and engagement with the person.” from the report
Infection control assurance
Inspectors were assured about the home's arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including use of protective equipment and testing.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Staffing consistency
needs fixingSome people were not always receiving the staff input they expected. The provider said staffing had recently been challenging and was using agency staff and staff from other services while recruiting.
“other people using the service were not always receiving the staff input they expected.” from the report
- 01How have staffing levels and recruitment changed since the inspection?
- 02How will you make sure people receive the staff input they expect when agency staff are used?
- 03What is the current procedure if someone leaves the home and may be at risk of harm?
- 04How are decisions about observation levels made after an incident?
- 05How do you involve the person and health professionals when reviewing their risk plan?
This was a targeted inspection of specific risks linked to people leaving the home, with infection control also checked; it did not assess the whole Safe question or the other key questions, so previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 October 2021 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, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; the previous overall rating was Good and inspectors found risks from self-injury were being managed safely.
This was a targeted inspection on 12 November 2020. It looked at concerns about self-injurious behaviour and also checked infection prevention and control. The inspector spoke with two people, three staff members, two relatives and one professional, and reviewed two care records.
Inspectors found that risks were assessed with input from people and health professionals. Care plans gave staff clear guidance. Staff knew people well, had relevant training and could explain how they would respond to incidents. Incidents were reviewed and changes to observation levels involved health professionals.
The home was also following infection prevention and control procedures. Inspectors were assured about PPE, testing, social distancing, admissions, cleaning and managing possible outbreaks.
This inspection did not give a new rating. Safe was inspected but not rated, and the previous overall rating of Good remained unchanged. The other four key questions were not assessed in this targeted visit.
Clear risk planning
People had risk management plans that included their views, identified risks and set out planned interventions. Staff could describe how they would respond to self-injury.
“People had risk management plans which included their input and identified areas and levels of risk and planned interventions.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff had specific training about self-injury and were able to explain the procedures to follow. Inspectors found they had suitable practical skills and knowledge.
“Staff were trained and confident on how to intervene when people self-injured.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Incidents were recorded and reviewed. The home used this information to consider staff practice, observation levels and further clinical input.
“Incidents of self-injury were monitored and recorded for each person using the service.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had effective infection prevention and control arrangements, including safe use of PPE and plans for outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and update my relative's risks from self-injury?
- 02What level of observation would be used after an incident, and who would decide when it could be reduced?
- 03What specific training have staff had to respond to self-injury?
- 04How would my relative be involved in decisions about safe access to the community?
- 05How would you support my relative during meals while staff are wearing PPE?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about self-injury and infection control; it did not reassess the full key questions, so the previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 December 2020 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 Althea Park House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 September 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.