CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at April Park Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and staff were recruited safely. There were some recording errors and one medicines record did not consistently show where a pain-relieving patch had been applied.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act, but capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not consistently recorded. One person's malnutrition risk had also not been assessed correctly.
- Caring?
- Requires improvement
- People and relatives generally said staff treated them well, but laundry problems meant some people's clothes went missing or were returned to the wrong room. Records did not always show relatives had been involved in decisions for people who lacked capacity.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's histories, choices and relationships. People had activities, help to keep in touch with others, and complaints were investigated with action taken.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager completed audits and had an improvement plan, but the systems did not reliably identify care-record, risk-assessment and medicines-recording problems. This led to a breach of Regulation 17.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe and responsive care, but concerns about decision records, dignity and management checks.
The inspection was unannounced on 4 January 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, staff and relatives, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Responsive. People were protected from abuse, medicines were usually given as prescribed, care plans were personalised, activities were available and complaints were investigated.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective, Caring and Well-led. Capacity and best-interest decisions were not consistently recorded, laundry problems affected people's dignity, and management checks had not found some recording and medicines risks.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. The home had a new manager who had applied to become registered, and was working through an action plan.
Protection from abuse
Staff knew how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns. Incidents had been reported, investigated and followed up appropriately.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from abuse.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, choices, relationships and support needs. Staff used this information to get to know people.
“Care plans contained information about people's lifestyle choices and personal relationships, and the support staff provided to ensure people's individual needs were met.” from the report
Activities and social contact
The home offered a range of activities and supported people to maintain important relationships. People told inspectors they enjoyed the activities.
“The service had activities coordinators in place who provided a range of activities. We saw evidence of several activities people had recently participated in” from the report
Healthcare support
Records showed regular contact with GPs and other health professionals. Staff made referrals when people's health or mobility deteriorated.
“Records showed us people had regular input from their GP and other medical professionals such as the district nursing team.” from the report
Capacity and best-interest records
needs fixingThe home had not consistently recorded capacity assessments or best-interest decisions. It had also not considered whether some people's care amounted to a deprivation of liberty.
“Best interest decisions had not consistently been recorded and the provider had not considered if people's care constituted a deprivation of their liberty.” from the report
Laundry and dignity
needs fixingRelatives reported that clothes went missing or were returned to the wrong room. The manager said a new system would be introduced.
“Laundry keeps going missing despite being marked, or turns up in the wrong room. I once found [person] in someone else's clothes.” from the report
Management checks
seriousAudits did not identify several recording problems or the risk that a pain-relieving patch might not be applied as prescribed. This resulted in a breach of Regulation 17.
“We found no evidence that people had been harmed, however, systems were either not in place or robust enough to demonstrate governance was effectively managed.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingThe administration record did not consistently state where one person's pain-relieving patch had been applied. The manager put a system in place immediately after this was raised.
“This meant there was a risk the patch may not be applied in line with the prescriber's instructions.” from the report
- 01How are you now recording capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and any required Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications?
- 02What new system is being used to stop clothes being lost or returned to the wrong person?
- 03How do you now check that medicines records include the application site for patches?
- 04What changes have been made to management audits so that care-record and risk-assessment errors are found promptly?
- 05Has the new manager's application to become registered been completed?
This inspection looked at all five key questions and included infection prevention and control, while the previous inspection rating was Good in 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 2023 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 April Park Care Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- February 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 August 2021.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.