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.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected by safeguarding procedures, risk assessments, suitable staffing and safe recruitment. Medicines were administered safely, although the opening date was missing from one medicine and was corrected immediately.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was tailored to people's needs and choices. Staff were trained, people were supported with food, healthcare and communication, and the home worked with health and social care professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with warmth, dignity and respect. People were supported to make daily choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and reflected people's needs, preferences and communication requirements. People were supported with relationships, family visits, activities and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager promoted an open culture, understood their responsibilities and used audits to identify and address improvements. People, relatives and staff were involved through meetings, surveys and feedback.
What inspectors found, October 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with a minor medicines recording issue addressed immediately.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 September 2023. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment checks and management records.
The home supported six people and could support up to nine. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines administration, suitable risk assessments and good infection control. People were treated with respect, involved in their care and supported to make choices, stay independent, see family and take part in activities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found consistently good outcomes and good management. The overall rating was unchanged from the previous Good rating, published in January 2019. The inspection had been prompted partly by safety concerns, but inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from that concern.
Safeguarding and staffing
The home had safeguarding systems, enough staff and thorough recruitment checks. Inspectors found that concerns had been acted on promptly.
“The provider had effective safeguarding procedures in place.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were individual and covered health, independence, goals, skills and abilities. Staff were described as knowing people well.
“The plans were comprehensive, covering all aspects of people's lives such as health, independence, goals, skills and abilities, and guided staff on how best to support people.” from the report
Respect and independence
People were treated with dignity and supported to make choices, maintain privacy and develop independence.
“Staff members showed warmth and respect when interacting with people.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities such as walking, shopping, coffee and meals out. The home supported contact with family and friends.
“The provider supported people to develop and maintain relationships with others such as family and friends to avoid social isolation.” from the report
One medicines record
minorThe opening date was missing from one medicine. Other records showed when it had been opened, and the manager corrected this immediately.
“We found the open date had not been recorded on 1 medicine though records were able to identify when this medicine was opened.” from the report
Decision-specific assessments
minorThe provider said it planned to review assessments so they clearly related to each individual decision. Ask what this review found and whether it is complete.
“The provider planned to review the assessments in place to ensure they were decision specific.” from the report
Mixed relative feedback
minorAlthough much of the feedback was positive, the report noted that relatives did not all give the same view of the service.
“People and staff were involved and engaged in the service whilst we had mixed reviews from people's relatives.” from the report
- 01What checks are now in place to make sure every medicine has its opening date recorded?
- 02Have the planned reviews of decision-specific assessments been completed, and what changes were made?
- 03How do you respond when relatives give mixed feedback about the service?
- 04How would staffing levels be changed if my relative's needs temporarily increased?
- 05How would my relative's future wishes about end of life care be recorded and reviewed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five quality areas, including infection prevention and control; it was prompted partly by concerns about people's safety, and the previous Good ratings remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 October 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.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found caring, safe and personalised support, with some end-of-life planning still being developed.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 6 December 2018. One inspector observed care, spoke with seven staff and one health professional, and reviewed care, medicines, complaints and management records.
The inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and dignity, and supported to make choices. Staff knew people's needs well, supported activities and relationships, managed medicines safely, and worked effectively with health professionals.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the service met the CQC's standard for good care at the time of this inspection. It had also been rated Good at the previous inspection in July 2016.
Kind and respectful care
People appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff. Staff used their knowledge of people's histories and preferences to provide considerate support.
“We saw staff were caring and considerate to the people they supported.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff were trained and checked as competent before giving medicines. Medicines were reviewed with GPs and stored, administered and disposed of safely.
“People's medicines were managed safely. Staff had to undertake training and have their competency checked before they could administer people's medicines.” from the report
Personalised choices
People were involved in decisions about food, activities, care and daily life. Consultation books used pictures and photographs to help people express their choices.
“The consultation books contained pictures and photographs which helped people to decide what they wanted and recorded their decisions.” from the report
Good partnership working
Staff worked closely with GPs and other health and social care professionals. The report says this helped people receive prompt support and improved access to healthcare.
“This helped to ensure people's physical and mental health needs were promptly met” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to enjoy activities that matched their interests and to keep in touch with family and friends.
“People were supported to enjoy a range of activities which reflected their interests, and enhanced their lives.” from the report
End-of-life planning
needs fixingThe home had started putting systems in place for end-of-life assessments and plans, but the manager said this work needed further development so everyone's wishes would be known and respected.
“The registered manager told us they planned to develop this area of work further, so all people's wishes at the end of their lives would be known and respected.” from the report
Relative feedback still being collected
minorFeedback from people and staff was positive, but surveys for relatives and other health and social care providers were still in progress at the inspection.
“The registered manager advised us surveys were in the process of being sent to relatives, and other health and social care providers” from the report
- 01How do you now record and regularly review each person's end-of-life wishes?
- 02How do you make sure staff understand my relative's communication preferences and personal choices?
- 03What activities and opportunities for independence would be available for my relative?
- 04How are staffing levels adjusted if a person's anxiety or support needs increase?
- 05How do you involve relatives in care plan reviews and in giving feedback about the service?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the premises and care across all five CQC questions, using observations, discussions and records including three people's care records and medicines records. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 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
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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
11 live-in carers within about an hour of Herefordshire, County of
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 £960 to £1,410 a week. 10 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.