CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Deer Park View Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Deer Park View Care Centre is rated Requires Improvement; care was safe, effective and kind, but activities and management checks need improvement.
Inspectors visited without notice on 23 and 26 August 2022. They spoke with 18 people, 9 relatives and 16 staff. They reviewed care records, risk assessments, staff files, medicines records and management checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. People were generally safe, received suitable health care and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Medicines records were accurate at the inspection, although a serious medicines error was being investigated and some staff training was overdue.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Responsive and Well-led. People did not always receive enough activities, social contact or one-to-one time. Management checks had not always identified problems or ensured they were fixed promptly.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection, published in 2017, to Requires Improvement. CQC found a breach of Regulation 17 on good governance and asked the provider for an action plan.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff treated them well and with respect. Inspectors saw staff respecting people's privacy and choices.
“People told us staff treated them well and with respect.” from the report
Health support
People received support to attend appointments and were supported by health professionals such as doctors, dietitians and speech and language therapists.
“People were provided with appropriate support which enabled their healthcare needs to be met.” from the report
Care planning
Care plans reflected people's needs, routines and preferences. People and relatives were involved in reviews where appropriate.
“Care and support plans were reviewed and updated to enable staff to support people meet their needs and choices.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found the premises clean and staff used protective equipment appropriately. The home's infection control policies followed national guidance.
“We observed staff using aprons and masks appropriately when supporting people.” from the report
Limited activities and social contact
needs fixingPeople, especially those staying in their rooms, did not always receive enough activities or meaningful one-to-one interaction. There was one wellbeing coordinator for the whole home at the time of the inspection.
“People were not consistently engaged to have activities to pursue their interests and social interaction.” from the report
Management checks did not drive improvement
seriousAudits did not always identify problems or ensure they were dealt with promptly. Some issues remained outstanding without clear responsibility or timescales.
“The provider's audit systems were not always effectively used to identify and address areas for improvement in a timely manner.” from the report
Overdue staff training
needs fixingSome staff had not completed required refresher or service-specific training, including medicines-related training. Supervision did not always cover staff development.
“Training records showed a low uptake which meant people may be put at risk because staff did not keep their knowledge up to date or receive refresher training when due.” from the report
Serious medicines incident
seriousA medicines error caused an adverse effect for one person and was being investigated by the provider and relevant authorities. Inspectors found medicines management records were accurate during the visit.
“We were notified of a serious incident of a medicines error which resulted in a person experiencing an adverse effect.” from the report
Some communal areas unavailable
minorSome lounges and bathrooms were being used to store equipment and boxes. The manager said this was temporary, and CQC planned to review it.
“Not all communal areas were available to people using the service.” from the report
- 01How many activities coordinators are now in post, and how will you provide regular one-to-one activities for people who stay in their rooms?
- 02What action has been taken following the serious medicines error, and how have you checked that staff medicines practice is safe?
- 03Which staff still need service-specific or refresher training, and when will this be completed?
- 04What changes have been made to the quality audits so that problems are given an owner, deadline and follow-up check?
- 05Are all lounges and bathrooms now available for residents rather than being used to store equipment?
This unannounced inspection looked at all five key questions and included infection prevention and control checks; the previous comprehensive inspection was published in 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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.
What inspectors found, October 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, strong records and effective management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 and 17 August 2017. One inspector visited the home, spoke with people, relatives, staff and the registered manager, observed care, and checked records, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, respectful care, personalised support and a clean, well-maintained environment.
People and relatives were positive about the care. Records were up to date, meals met people's needs and preferences, and the management team encouraged feedback and checked the quality of the service.
The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection in June 2015. This inspection found that all five ratings remained Good.
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with dignity and compassion. They understood individual communication needs, preferences and routines.
“Staff spoke in a way and at a speed that people could comfortably understand and follow.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans covered health, mobility, personal care, activities and end-of-life wishes. They were regularly reviewed and kept up to date.
“The care plans were comprehensive, up to date and contained sections for all aspects of peoples' health and wellbeing.” from the report
Good food and mealtime support
People had choice and variety in their meals. Staff supported people patiently and at their own pace, including people living with dementia.
“People were protected from nutrition and hydration associated risks with balanced diets that also met their likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
Strong management checks
The home used audits, surveys, meetings and care plan checks to identify how it was performing and where improvements were needed.
“There was a robust quality assurance system that identified how the home was performing, any areas that required improvement and also those where the home was performing well.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are medicines checked and audited now, and how are medicine records kept up to date?
- 02How do you involve people and their relatives in care planning and reviews?
- 03What training and supervision do staff receive, including training for dementia and people's specific health needs?
- 04What activities are currently available, including individual activities for people who do not want to join groups?
- 05How are complaints and suggestions recorded, investigated and used to improve the home?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with all five ratings remaining Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 October 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 Deer Park View Care Centre
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 July 2013.
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 Richmond upon Thames
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 £1,270 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“We cannot speak highly enough of the care that Angelique gave, and would recommend her to anyone else needing a live-in carer.”
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.