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 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-managed care, with some record-keeping gaps already corrected.
The home supports up to six adults with a learning disability or autism. Six people were living there during the inspection. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files and management checks.
The inspection was focused on Safe, Effective and Well-led. All three were rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, detailed risk assessments, suitable training and support from health professionals. People were supported to make choices, stay healthy and take part in decisions about their care.
The inspection followed an increase in reported incidents. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from this concern. They found some gaps in weight records, but the manager had taken action to correct them. The overall rating remains Good, and the home had acted on recommendations from the previous inspection.
Choice and independence
People had personalised rooms, access to shared areas and support to make choices. Care plans focused on building independence and reducing restrictions.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and safe recruitment checks. Medicine records were complete and medicines were checked regularly.
“Medicine administration records were completed correctly with no gaps and reasons for giving 'as needed' medicines were documented.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered physical and mental health, communication, cultural and spiritual needs, as well as people's goals and end of life wishes.
“Support plans included people's end of life care wishes.” from the report
Open management
Management was visible and approachable. Relatives and staff could raise concerns or suggestions, and the home used audits and meetings to make improvements.
“Management were visible in the service, approachable and took a genuine interest in what people, staff and other professionals had to say.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home reviewed incidents, discussed lessons with staff and changed an activity arrangement to reduce distress for one person.
“The lesson learnt was the activity could have been broken down into two slots of smaller groups at different times.” from the report
Gaps in weight records
minorA quality check found missing weight recordings for three people. The manager had taken action and corrected the issue, but you may want to check how this is now monitored.
“there were gaps in records. For example, there were gaps in weight recordings for 3 people.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that everyone's weight records are completed on time?
- 02What changes were made after the increase in reported incidents, and how do you know those changes are working?
- 03How are restriction reduction plans reviewed, and how do you make sure calming medicines are used only as a last resort?
- 04How do you involve relatives in reviews of care plans, including cultural, spiritual and end of life wishes?
- 05How do you make sure people's food choices and cultural preferences continue to shape the weekly menus?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 2024 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, April 2019
Park House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with two areas needing improvement in care planning.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 February 2019. One inspector reviewed care records, staff files, training records and other management records. They spoke briefly with two people using the home, four relatives and members of staff.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient and staff had the required checks and training.
People were treated kindly and respectfully. Their care plans included their preferences, communication needs and personal goals. Relatives were positive about the care and said they knew how to raise concerns.
Inspectors made two recommendations. Care planning did not explore people's sexuality, and the home had not recorded people's wishes about end of life care. The previous inspection, published in March 2017, had also been rated Good.
Risk and safety
People had detailed risk assessments that supported them to take part in activities while reducing the risk of harm.
“People had strong risk assessments that minimised risks people faced while in the service and the community.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's preferences, relationships, communication needs and personal goals.
“People's care plans were personalised and contained their preferences.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed staff speaking kindly, while relatives said people were treated with respect and dignity.
“People were comfortable with staff and staff spoke in a kind and caring manner to people.” from the report
Quality checks
The home used regular audits and a continuous improvement plan to check care and address issues.
“Quality assurance was performed within the service which included health and safety, monthly internal medicine audit, infection control, data protection and nutrition and hydration.” from the report
Diversity in care plans
needs fixingCare planning did not explore people's sexuality. Inspectors recommended that the home follow best practice in assessing diversity.
“However, as part of the care planning process exploring people's sexuality was not addressed.” from the report
End of life wishes
needs fixingThe home had not asked people about their end of life wishes, although nobody was receiving end of life support at the time.
“The service did not ask for people's end of life wishes during the care planning process.” from the report
- 01How have you changed care planning so that each person's sexuality and wider diversity needs are considered?
- 02How do you now discuss and record each person's end of life wishes?
- 03How are medicines checked, and what happens if a person refuses a medicine?
- 04How are relatives kept informed about changes in a person's health or care needs?
- 05How do you support people to take positive risks while keeping them safe?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided; the inspector spoke briefly with two people and reviewed two people's care records. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 April 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
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 June 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 Haringey
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. 75 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Over the time he spent with them he got to know our parents very well and became like part of the family, even joining in family celebrations.”
“Violet is a kind and positive, caring person and we are lucky and delighted to have her caring for our 96 year old grandmother.”
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.