CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Park Crescent
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found detailed risk assessments, safe recruitment, enough staff and robust medicines arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's health and social needs, and staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisal. Inspectors noted that some DoLS authorisations had been delayed and some staff wanted more face-to-face training.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with dignity, kindness and respect. Staff knew people's preferences and communication styles and supported greater independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were highly personalised. People were supported with activities, relationships, community involvement, communication and their own goals.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive leadership, good teamwork and thorough quality checks. The manager involved people and staff and worked with families and outside professionals.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some delays in formal liberty safeguards and limits in staff training formats.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 21 and 22 May 2019. One inspector reviewed care plans, staff records and quality checks, observed care, and spoke with people, staff and the manager.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were treated with kindness and respect, supported to make choices, and helped to develop skills and confidence.
The home had detailed risk assessments and care plans, safe medicines arrangements, suitable staffing and thorough recruitment checks. It also supported activities, community involvement, healthcare access and communication in ways people could understand.
There were two areas to keep under review. Some Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations had been delayed, and some staff felt the e-learning training did not suit all learning styles. The report says legal requirements were met.
Personalised care
Care plans were tailored to each person, and staff used their knowledge of individual preferences, routines and communication styles.
“Care plans were highly person centred and the person was placed at the heart of the plan.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were helped to make choices, try new activities, build confidence and develop skills. They were supported to take part in life at home and in the community.
“People had developed new skills and achieved greater independence.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw a relaxed and friendly atmosphere. Staff treated people with compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.
“We saw lots of laughter and joking between people and staff.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
The home had detailed medicines plans, regular staff competence checks and enough staff to support people's chosen activities safely.
“People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because there were appropriate arrangements and robust processes in place.” from the report
Good communication
Information was provided in easy-read and pictorial formats, with communication passports to help staff understand people's gestures and mannerisms.
“The service produced a range of information in easy read format.” from the report
Delayed liberty safeguards
needs fixingSome Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations had been delayed. Families should ask whether any outstanding authorisations have since been completed.
“We found DoLS had been applied for where appropriate although there was a delay in some of the authorisations.” from the report
Training formats
minorSome staff said the e-learning format did not suit all learning styles and that they preferred face-to-face training.
“Training in its current format did not account for all learning styles.” from the report
- 01Have all delayed Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations now been completed?
- 02How do you support staff who find e-learning difficult, including access to face-to-face training?
- 03How would you adapt the care plan and communication approach for my relative's specific needs?
- 04What activities and community opportunities could my relative take part in?
- 05How are families involved in reviewing care plans, risks and decisions made in their relative's best interests?
This was a scheduled comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and each rating remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 August 2019 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, November 2016
Park Crescent was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, caring and person-centred support, with some records and accessible information needing improvement.
The inspection was announced and took place on 6 October 2016. One inspector visited the home, spoke with five people, three staff, the registered manager and a visiting professional, and reviewed care records and other documents.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, were happy living at the home and liked the staff. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training and support, varied meals, health support and activities based on people's preferences.
There were some areas to improve. Some easy-read and pictorial information was not easy to access. People did not fully understand the support planning process, some staff supervision was not regular, one health action plan was out of date and one activity planner had not been updated. The manager said these issues would be addressed.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and knew they could raise concerns with staff or management. Inspectors found systems for safeguarding and managing risks.
“People who used the service told us they felt safe, and said they talked to staff about how to stay safe.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs and support individual outings. Medicines were checked and administered as prescribed.
“We checked two people's medicines and medication administration records (MARS), and found their medicines had been administered as prescribed.” from the report
Kind, personalised care
People were positive about staff, who knew their preferences and supported their choices, independence and relationships.
“During the inspection we observed staff spending time with people and it was clear they knew the people they were supporting.” from the report
Activities and choice
People helped choose meals and took part in activities in the home and local community. They were also involved in household tasks.
“People engaged in a range of activities in the home and in the local community.” from the report
Open management
People and staff could speak with the manager, and regular meetings allowed people to suggest changes. The provider used audits and reports to monitor the home.
“Regular meetings were held so people could discuss their views and receive feedback about the service.” from the report
Information was not always accessible
minorSome easy-read and pictorial information was kept in support plan files that people did not generally access. The manager said they would make this information easier to reach.
“Some information was not easily accessible so the registered manager was going to look at how they could develop this.” from the report
People's involvement in support plans
needs fixingPeople did not fully understand the support planning process, and some information was difficult to understand. One support plan agreement was not signed.
“The registered manager was going to look at how they could involve people more to make sure they fully understood this.” from the report
Some records needed updating
needs fixingOne health action plan was not up to date and one activity planner had not been changed after the person's programme changed. The manager said these records would be reviewed.
“One person's activity programme had changed a few weeks before the inspection but their planner had not been updated.” from the report
Supervision was not regular for some staff
needs fixingRecords showed that some staff had not received supervision regularly. The manager said a new system would identify gaps.
“The records we reviewed indicated staff were supervised but some had not received supervision on a regular basis.” from the report
- 01How do you now help people understand and take part in their support plan reviews?
- 02How do people access easy-read and pictorial information about their care and rights?
- 03How do you check that health action plans, including dental and optical needs, are up to date?
- 04How do you make sure activity planners are updated when people's programmes change?
- 05How do you monitor that staff receive supervision regularly?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 November 2016 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 Park Crescent
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 August 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 Manchester
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. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.