CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Park House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised rehabilitation care, with some staff recruitment records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 10 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with nine people, one relative and staff. They observed care, activities and lunch, and checked care records, medicines, staff files, audits and other records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe, were treated kindly and were supported to build their independence. The home provides specialist rehabilitation for up to 12 people with an acquired brain injury or neurological condition.
The home had improved how often people's risk assessments were reviewed since the previous inspection. Inspectors found some missing or conflicting information in staff recruitment files, but the manager had started an audit and introduced a stronger checking tool.
Rehabilitation and independence
The home provided personalised rehabilitation programmes designed to help people regain skills, reach goals and move towards greater independence.
“The service aims to maximise independence and recovery, equipping people with the skills to return home or to a supported environment” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People consistently described staff as kind and supportive. Inspectors saw staff listening, offering reassurance and asking before helping.
“People unanimously told us that staff treated them with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Safe risk management
Risks were recorded in care records and reviewed regularly. This was an improvement since the previous inspection.
“The service has improved to Good because people's risk assessments were now being reviewed and updated regularly.” from the report
Specialist support
An on-site team provided ongoing support from psychology, physiotherapy, speech and language, and occupational therapy professionals.
“An interdisciplinary team was based on site, providing on going rehabilitative support including psychology, physiotherapy, speech and language and occupational therapy input.” from the report
Involvement and feedback
People, relatives and staff were asked for their views through surveys, meetings and everyday conversations. The home used this feedback to improve.
“People, their relatives and staff were engaged and involved.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingSome staff files were missing required information, including a full employment history and explanations for gaps. Another file contained conflicting information about work history and references.
“We looked at a sample of staff files and found that most of the required checks were in place, but some were missing.” from the report
End-of-life preferences
minorNo one needed end-of-life care during the inspection. Information about people's preferences varied, and the management team planned to make it more personalised.
“Records showed that the service had obtained some information from people about their preferences and choices in the event of them requiring end of life care, but this varied” from the report
- 01Has the audit of all staff files been completed, and are full employment histories, explanations for gaps and suitable references now recorded?
- 02How will you tailor the rehabilitation programme and measure progress towards the person's individual goals?
- 03Which members of the on-site interdisciplinary team will support the person, and how often will they be involved?
- 04How will the person be supported to manage or administer their own medicines if they become ready?
- 05How will you record and review the person's end-of-life, cultural, spiritual and equality-related preferences if their needs change?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, and the previous concern about reviewing and updating risk assessments had been addressed. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 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.
Every inspection of Park House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 November 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
88 live-in carers within about an hour of Bedford
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. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.