CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Care at Parkside
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicines records and some risk information were not always accurate. Staffing, recruitment, equipment checks and infection control were satisfactory, but action was not taken promptly when bathroom water temperatures were too high.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not looked at during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating, but that rating is not given in this report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not looked at during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating, but that rating is not given in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The home knew people's preferences and communication needs, supported activities and helped people keep in touch with family and friends. Recording of activities had improved since the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home used regular audits, but these did not reliably identify or correct medicines and safety problems. Management had recently changed, with the owner applying to become the registered manager.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but continuing problems with medicines records and service oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 3 and 6 August 2021. An inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with five relatives, the manager and staff. They reviewed care records, all medication records, staff files, audits and other records.
The home had enough staff, followed good infection control practices and supported people with activities, communication and family contact. Care plans described people's preferences well. Relatives were mostly positive about the care and staff.
Inspectors found medicines records were not always accurate or complete. Audits had not identified or fixed some problems, including high bathroom water temperatures. The water problem was fixed after the inspection, and some medicines documentation was improved immediately afterwards. The home remained in breach of Regulation 17 and received a warning notice.
Staffing and safeguarding
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff understood how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns, and recruitment checks had been completed.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and support them appropriately.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes and preferred support. Staff knew people well and respected their choices.
“People had care plans which contained detailed descriptions of how they liked staff to support them.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to join activities and keep in contact with relatives and friends. Recording of participation had improved.
“Staff helped people participate in activities within the home, such as board games, craft sessions and celebrations of events, such as birthdays.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable infection prevention arrangements, including safe use of protective equipment and premises hygiene.
“We were assured that the provider was using personal protective equipment (PPE) effectively and safely.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousGuidance for medicines given when needed was missing in some cases. Creams, thickened drinks and medicine stock records were not always documented accurately.
“One person had been prescribed a potent steroid cream to be applied for two weeks only. However, staff had continued to apply this cream for a further week without discussing this with the person's doctor.” from the report
Weak checks and oversight
seriousRegular audits did not reliably identify problems or make sure action was taken. This was a continuing breach of Regulation 17.
“However, the shortfalls we identified at this inspection had not been picked up by these audits.” from the report
Water temperature checks
needs fixingChecks showed that bathroom water was sometimes hotter than the recommended maximum, but no action was taken before the inspection. The manager fixed this immediately afterwards.
“Weekly checks on the water temperatures in the downstairs shower and bathrooms had shown that the water was sometimes hotter than the recommended maximum temperature. However, no action had been taken.” from the report
Communication with relatives
minorMost relatives said they were kept informed, but one relative felt communication from the home was poor.
“Most relatives told us they were kept informed about their loved one's health. However, one person felt communication from the home was poor.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines records for as-needed medicines, creams, thickened drinks and medicine stock?
- 02How do you now check that medicines audits identify problems and that action is completed?
- 03What checks are now in place to keep bathroom water temperatures within safe limits?
- 04Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and has the application to become the registered manager been completed?
- 05How will you keep relatives informed about changes in their loved one's health and care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led, with the previous ratings for Effective and Caring carried forward because they were not looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 February 2024 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, September 2022
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and prompt care, but concerns about cleanliness, repairs, activities and management oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 17 and 22 August 2022 and checked Safe, Responsive and Well-led. They spoke with six people and staff, and reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, audits and other records.
People generally said they were happy with the care. Staff knew people well, responded promptly, managed risks and medicines safely, and there were enough staff. However, some parts of the building were dirty or poorly maintained, and staff did not always wear face masks in line with guidance.
People had person-centred care plans and their choices were respected. But people said they were bored and there were too few meaningful activities. Management checks had not found problems with lighting, cleaning, repairs and flushing taps in unused rooms.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were also Requires Improvement, while Responsive was Good. Effective and Caring were not inspected in this visit, so their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating.
Kind care
People told inspectors they were happy with the care. Inspectors observed kind and caring interactions between staff and people living at the home.
“People spoke positively about the staff and we observed kind and caring interactions between staff and people living at Care at Parkside.” from the report
Enough staff
People said staff were available to help, and inspectors saw staff respond promptly to requests for assistance.
“During our inspection we saw staff responded promptly to people's requests for assistance.” from the report
Improved medicines management
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. This was an improvement from the previous inspection.
“At this inspection improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation, in relation to medicines records.” from the report
Respect for choices
Care plans described how people wanted to be supported, and staff respected people's choices, including when people wanted to stay in their bedrooms.
“Staff respected people's choices and decisions.” from the report
Dirty and poorly maintained areas
seriousInspectors found dirty areas, poor-quality flooring, chipped tiles, a rusty toilet frame and other problems. They also found repairs and redecoration were needed.
“Some areas of the home were dirty, particularly skirting boards.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits had not identified missing lights, poor maintenance or incomplete flushing of taps in unused rooms. The provider remained in breach of Regulation 17.
“There continued to be insufficient oversight of the maintenance of service.” from the report
Too few meaningful activities
needs fixingPeople said they were bored and did not have enough to occupy their time. Inspectors saw very few activities and recommended that the provider look at best practice guidance.
“People told us they were bored and there was not enough to do and occupy their time.” from the report
Face masks not always worn
needs fixingSeveral staff were seen not wearing face masks, and some staff did not know the current guidance for care homes.
“However, we saw several staff not wearing face masks.” from the report
- 01What repairs and cleaning work identified by the inspection have now been completed, and how do you check that standards stay up to date?
- 02How are you making sure all staff follow the current face-mask guidance?
- 03What meaningful activities are now available, and how are they matched to each person's interests and care plan?
- 04How do you check that bedrooms have working bedside and overhead lights?
- 05How are you recording and checking the flushing of taps in vacant rooms?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 September 2022 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 Care at Parkside
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- February 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2022Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 January 2011.
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 Oldham
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. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.