CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Park Hill House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks, medicines, infection control, safeguarding and incidents were managed safely. Staffing levels met people's care and one-to-one support needs, although the home relied on agency staff.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments and personalised care plans. Staff had relevant training, supported people's health needs and helped people make choices in line with the law.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were patient, kind and respectful. They understood people's preferred ways of communicating and involved people and their relatives in care decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was tailored to people's communication, sensory and daily living needs. People took part in interests and activities, but staffing shortages reduced the amount of community activity.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were visible and approachable, and quality checks were used to improve the service. Staff felt supported and the home sought feedback from people and relatives.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Park Hill House was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but staffing shortages limited community activities.
The unannounced inspection took place on 21 September 2022. One inspector spoke with relatives and staff, observed care because people could not verbally communicate with the inspector, and reviewed care records, medicines, staffing and service management records.
The home was caring for five people and could support up to six people with learning disabilities and/or autism. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with dignity and supported by staff who understood their communication, health and sensory needs.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Staffing shortages meant the home relied on agency staff and people could not take part in as many community activities as hoped. The previous overall rating was also Good.
Personalised care plans
Care plans reflected people's physical and mental health needs, communication methods, sensory needs and aspirations. Staff reviewed them with people, relatives and others where appropriate.
“People had care and support plans that were personalised, holistic, strengths-based and reflected their needs and aspirations, including physical and mental health needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors observed patient, calm and caring interactions. Staff respected privacy and dignity and understood how people communicated, including through non-verbal methods.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff who used positive, respectful language which people understood and responded well to.” from the report
Safe systems
The home had safe arrangements for medicines, safeguarding, infection control, risk management and learning from incidents. Records were accurate, complete and up to date.
“People's care records helped them get the support they needed because it was easy for staff to access and keep high quality clinical and care records.” from the report
Strong management
Managers were visible, approachable and involved in people's care. Audits and other checks helped monitor safety and quality.
“Governance processes were effective and helped to hold staff to account, keep people safe, protect people's rights and provide good quality care and support.” from the report
Staffing shortages
needs fixingThe home was relying on agency staff because of recruitment difficulties. This meant people had fewer opportunities for meaningful activities in the community than intended.
“However, due to the current staffing challenges this meant that people were not able to engage in as many meaningful activities in the community as hoped.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff are now in place, and how often is agency staff used?
- 02How many community activities can each person currently take part in?
- 03What progress has been made with recruiting additional staff since the inspection?
- 04How will you make sure agency staff understand each person's communication, sensory and support needs?
- 05How are people and their relatives involved in reviewing care plans and choosing activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises, care provided, infection prevention and control, medicines, staffing and management. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 October 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, December 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some risk assessment and policy gaps.
The unannounced inspection took place on 16 November 2017. One inspector reviewed care and medicines records, staff records, policies and the home. They spoke with staff and relatives, and observed how staff supported people because the people using the service were unable to speak with the inspector.
The inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm, received their medicines as prescribed and had enough staff support. Staff understood people's communication, health and personal care needs. People were treated with kindness, supported to make choices and helped to maintain family relationships and take part in activities.
There were some gaps. A risk assessment was needed for unsupervised access to hot water and the gas hob. Some staff needed updated training on mental capacity and deprivation of liberty safeguards. Some policies were out of date, and one authorisation had lapsed. Overall, all five areas were rated Good, and the home remained Good compared with the inspection on 28 September 2015.
Safety and staffing
Staff understood safeguarding procedures and risks in the home and community. Staffing levels were adjusted to people's routines and activities.
“Staff assessed, managed and mitigated risks to people's safety at the service and in the community.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood people's ways of communicating and responded to their needs. Privacy, dignity, personal choices and family relationships were respected.
“Staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's health, personal care, social and financial needs. These plans were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“People continued to receive personalised care that meet their needs.” from the report
Activities and independence
People had a busy programme including daily living skills, exercise, leisure activities, hydrotherapy and day centre visits.
“Staff supported people to engage in a wide range of activities and to try new things.” from the report
Kitchen safety assessment
seriousThere was no risk assessment covering access to hot water from the kitchen sink or the gas hob when someone was in the kitchen unsupervised. The manager said this would be addressed.
“However, we identified that a risk assessment was not in place in regards to people accessing hot water from the kitchen sink or having access to a gas supply via the hob if in the kitchen unsupervised.” from the report
Mental capacity training
needs fixingSome staff had not received recent training on the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The manager had booked them onto the next available course.
“We identified that some staff had not received recent training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).” from the report
Lapsed authorisation
needs fixingOne person's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation had lapsed. The manager was working with the local authority to have it reviewed.
“One person's DoLS authorisation had lapsed. However, the registered manager was in liaison with the local authority to try and get this reviewed.” from the report
Outdated policies
minorSome provider policies were out of date and might not reflect current good practice. The manager said this would be passed to the provider for updating.
“We identified that some of the provider's policies were out of date and there was a risk they would not reflect current good practice.” from the report
- 01Has the risk assessment for access to hot water and the gas hob in the kitchen now been completed?
- 02Have all staff completed recent Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards training?
- 03Was the lapsed Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation reviewed and renewed?
- 04Have the outdated provider policies been updated?
- 05What was the outcome of the complaint that was still being worked on at the time of the inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five areas were rated; the previous inspection on 28 September 2015 had also rated the service Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 December 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 Park Hill House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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 Sutton
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 £1,230 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.