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 told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood safeguarding responsibilities. Risks were assessed, medicines were checked and staff recruitment was completed safely.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Some window frames were rotting, draughty and had signs of damp or flaking wood. Inspectors also found other decoration and maintenance issues, so this question was rated Requires Improvement.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with respect and kindness. People were involved in decisions, and staff supported privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected individual needs, preferences, goals and communication methods. People were supported with social activities, relationships, complaints and plans for end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open culture, regular audits and meetings involving people and staff. The manager worked with other professionals and used feedback and learning to improve care.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Park House rated Good overall, but Effective Requires Improvement because some windows and other parts of the building needed attention.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 03 March 2020. One inspector met all five people living in the home, spoke with two people and two staff, observed a team meeting, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm, treated with kindness and respect, involved in their care, and supported to take part in activities and develop independence.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Some wooden window frames were rotting, draughty and could cause injury. Inspectors also found mould and cleanliness issues in four showers, although the manager said these had been deep cleaned after the inspection.
The overall rating stayed Good, but the Effective rating fell from Good at the previous inspection. The report does not say that any regulations were breached or that enforcement action was taken.
Kind and respectful support
People said staff treated them respectfully. Inspectors observed caring communication and saw that staff knew people's needs well.
“We observed staff spoke with people in a professional and caring manner.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included individual conditions, needs, preferences, goals and aspirations. People were involved in decisions about their care.
“People's records demonstrated people's care was tailor made to each individual, taking into account their conditions, care needs and preferences.” from the report
Support for independence
Staff helped people build skills such as road safety, shopping, meal preparation and managing their own meals. One person had begun going into the community independently.
“This included support with road safety and going shopping.” from the report
Good management and learning
The home used audits, staff meetings and feedback to monitor care and make improvements. Staff were encouraged to contribute their views.
“Staff were empowered to contribute to the running of the service and their views were valued and used to drive improvement.” from the report
Rotting and draughty windows
seriousSome wooden window frames were rotting, wet inside and letting draughts into bedrooms. The report says this had already been identified by audits but had not yet been addressed, and one frame posed a risk of injury.
“Some of the window frames were rotting and allowed draughts into people's bedrooms.” from the report
Bathroom cleanliness and maintenance
needs fixingFour showers needed cleaning and had black mould on the grouting. The manager said these were deep cleaned after the inspection and that replacement grouting was being arranged.
“Four of the showers looked at required cleaning and there was black mould on the grouting.” from the report
Staff vacancies
needs fixingThe home was taking action to fill staff vacancies. It was using a regular agency staff member at night, and a new staff member was due to start after the inspection.
“Action was being undertaken to address staff vacancies, this included the use of a regular agency staff member at night” from the report
- 01Have all the rotting, draughty and damp window frames been repaired or replaced, and when was this completed?
- 02Has the black mould and damaged grouting in the showers been fully dealt with, and how are bathroom cleaning checks recorded now?
- 03How are staffing vacancies being covered, and how often is agency staff used at night?
- 04How will my relative's mental health needs, goals and preferences be assessed and reflected in their care plan?
- 05How will my relative and our family be asked for feedback about the service?
This was an unannounced, planned inspection covering all five key questions; the previous rating was Good, but Effective fell to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 March 2020 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, August 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no major concerns identified.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 4 August 2017. The inspector spoke with three people living at the home, observed staff and residents, and spoke with staff, the manager and a health professional. They reviewed two care records and management records.
The home supported up to five people with mental health needs. Four people were living there during the inspection. Inspectors found that people were safe, medicines were managed properly, and staffing was sufficient for people's assessed needs.
People were supported by trained staff who respected their choices, privacy and independence. Care plans were personalised, activities were meaningful, and people had access to health professionals. The home also had audits to identify and address shortfalls.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. This was the same overall rating as at the previous inspection on 12 December 2014.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Risks in the home and community were assessed and managed.
“People told us that they felt safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive relationships between staff and people. Staff listened, reassured people when they were anxious and respected their dignity and choices.
“Staff interacted with people in a kind and caring way.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's individual needs, preferences, strengths and hopes. People were involved in planning their care.
“The records provided staff with information about how to meet people's specific needs and preferences.” from the report
Meaningful daily life
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed, including work, gardening and using the computer.
“This meant that people undertook meaningful daily activities and took responsibility for their home.” from the report
Quality checks
The home used audits covering areas such as medicines, health and safety and care. Records showed that identified shortfalls were acted on.
“Where shortfalls were identified, records demonstrated that these were acted upon, such as improving the recording system.” from the report
Manager registration
minorThere was no registered manager in post when inspectors visited. A manager was in place and an application for registration had been received.
“There was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01What is the current position on the manager's application for registration?
- 02How are staffing levels checked when staff are working alone in the home?
- 03How will you support my relative's particular mental health needs and rehabilitation programme?
- 04What meaningful activities and community opportunities would be available to my relative?
- 05How are medicines checked and any recording issues followed up?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 August 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 House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 December 2010.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents 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.