CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Park Hall
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some health-specific risk assessments were missing, including diabetes assessments, and one person did not have plans to assess the risk of skin damage. Medicines were generally managed safely, staffing was sufficient and infection control arrangements were in place.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans were detailed but some were not reviewed or updated when people's needs changed. Staff were trained and supported, and people received suitable food and healthcare support.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were warm and respectful. They protected people's dignity and privacy, promoted independence and listened to people and their relatives.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People had personalised care plans, choices and activities. Staff supported communication and contact with relatives, and people and relatives could raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Audits and checks did not always identify problems or ensure that action was taken promptly. People, relatives and staff felt positive about the new manager, who created an action plan and responded to the inspection feedback.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but gaps in risk records and quality checks created a risk of harm.
The inspection was unannounced and took place over 30 January and 1 February 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment files and management checks, and observed care.
The home was caring and responsive. Staff treated people with dignity, supported their independence, helped them keep in touch with relatives and provided activities. People were supported with food, communication and healthcare, and the home was clean and well maintained.
There were important weaknesses in safety and management. Some health risk assessments and care plans were missing or out of date. Quality checks did not always find problems or make sure action was taken quickly. The home manager responded to feedback and started an action plan, but CQC said improvements were needed.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff treated people with warmth, protected their dignity and encouraged independence.
“Staff members showed warmth and respect when interacting with people.” from the report
Personalised support
People were given choices and supported according to their preferences, communication needs and interests.
“People had personalised care plans developed from their initial assessment of care needs, which included their preferences.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People were supported to take part in regular activities and keep in contact with relatives.
“People were supported to participate in activities on a regular basis.” from the report
Staffing and infection control
Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff and were assured about infection prevention arrangements.
“There were enough safely recruited staff.” from the report
Missing risk assessments
seriousSome specific health risk assessments were not in place. CQC said this increased the risk that signs of illness or harm might not be identified quickly.
“Specific risk assessments were not always in place, such as diabetes risk assessments.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingSome care plans were not reviewed or updated when people's needs changed. This included information about nutritional supplements.
“People had detailed care plans in place although not all of these were regularly reviewed and therefore did not always accurately reflect people's needs.” from the report
Quality checks did not work reliably
seriousAudits did not always identify missing reviews, medicine issues or delays in referrals. This was a breach because the systems did not show that safety was being managed effectively.
“Governance systems were not robust enough to demonstrate safety was effectively managed.” from the report
Some medicine protocols lacked detail
needs fixingMedicines were generally managed safely, but some instructions for medicines given only when needed did not contain enough dosage information.
“'As required' medicine protocols were in place, although some of these needed more detail around the dosage when people lacked capacity to make this decision for themselves.” from the report
- 01Have all health-specific risk assessments, including diabetes and skin integrity assessments, now been completed and reviewed?
- 02How do you make sure care plans are updated promptly when a person's needs change?
- 03What checks now confirm that changes in weight lead to timely monitoring and professional referrals?
- 04How are medicines given only when needed recorded, including the correct dosage and decisions for people who cannot make them?
- 05What evidence can you show that the action plan has fixed the problems identified by CQC?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection of the service under the current registration. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 March 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 Park Hall
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 May 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Stoke-on-Trent
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 £1,190 a week. 93 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“She's shown compassion, patience and a level of understanding that no other carer has given.”
“She maintained a great environment for mum both with the tidiness and cleanliness of the house and Mum and with her caring and understanding attitude.”
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.