CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Park House Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Rated Good and no longer in special measures; inspectors found safe, effective, person-centred care, but well-led was Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 14 December 2021. Inspectors checked whether the home had acted on problems found at the previous inspection. They spoke with one person, eight relatives and nine staff, and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Effective were both rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safer recruitment, safe medicines systems, appropriate infection control, detailed care plans, trained staff and timely contact with health professionals.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The manager had introduced checks, audits and an action plan, but there was little evidence that the provider had enough oversight of how the home was being run. The home had improved from its previous Requires Improvement rating, and it was no longer in breach of regulations or in special measures.
Person-centred care
Inspectors found that care plans recorded people's personalities, choices and preferences. Staff were described as engaged in providing individual care.
“People received person-centred care which was inclusive of their needs and preferences.” from the report
Improved safety
The home had addressed earlier problems with staffing, recruitment, infection control, risk management and learning from incidents. It was no longer in breach of the regulations checked in these areas.
“Enough improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 18.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had a training plan, could request extra training and were receiving supervision and appraisals. Inspectors found staff knowledgeable about people's needs.
“People were supported by staff who had received training. There was a robust training plan in place.” from the report
Good food and nutrition support
People were offered varied food, snacks and drinks. Staff monitored people at risk of malnutrition and sought health advice when needed.
“Where people needed support to eat they received this from staff in a patient and unrushed manner.” from the report
People involved in the home
Residents' meetings took place each month, and inspectors found that people's views were recorded and acted on.
“People were very involved in how the home was run.” from the report
Provider oversight
needs fixingThe manager had developed checks and audits, but the report found little evidence that the provider checked effectively that the home was being managed properly. CQC recommended clearer governance arrangements at all levels.
“However, there was little evidence of how the provider ensured the registered manager was doing their job and how the provider had oversight of the service.” from the report
Keeping relatives informed
needs fixingSome relatives said they were not always updated about their family member's health needs. The manager had started auditing records to make communication more consistent.
“Some relatives told us they were not always kept up to date about their family member's health needs.” from the report
Staffing concerns raised by relatives
minorSome relatives did not think staffing levels were always sufficient, although recent recruitment had filled the reported vacancies and rotas were based on people's needs.
“However, some relatives did not feel there was enough staff.” from the report
Procedures added after inspection
needs fixingWritten instructions for some as-needed medicines were not available during the inspection, although the manager said they were put in place the next day.
“However, although detailed information was in people's care plans, protocols to direct staff about how to do this were not available.” from the report
- 01How does the provider now check that the registered manager is doing their job and that the home is being run safely?
- 02How will you keep me informed about changes in my relative's health and care needs?
- 03How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient for residents' needs, including when there are absences?
- 04What written instructions are now in place for as-needed medicines?
- 05How are residents' views recorded and followed up after meetings?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; the ratings for Caring and Responsive were not looked at and previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 January 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, July 2021
Rated Requires Improvement and still in special measures; well-led was Inadequate, with staffing, safety and governance shortfalls despite kind care.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 May 2021. Two inspectors spoke with people, a relative and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home had improved from its previous overall Inadequate rating. Inspectors found Good caring and responsive care. People were treated kindly, their care was personalised, and they were supported to keep relationships and take part in activities.
There were still important safety and management problems. Staffing was too low, some equipment checks were late, training was not up to date, and systems for learning from incidents and tracking safeguarding concerns were not reliable.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Effective were Requires Improvement, while Well-led remained Inadequate. The home remained in special measures because of the Inadequate rating in a key question over consecutive comprehensive inspections.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives gave consistently positive feedback. Inspectors saw warm relationships, and staff supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“We observed warm and positive relationships between people and staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included detailed information about people's routines, preferences and communication needs. Inspectors saw that these preferences were followed.
“People received person-centred care which reflected their needs and choices.” from the report
Food and mealtimes
People had choices, a good range of snacks and drinks, and patient support when they needed help to eat.
“People who needed support to eat received this from staff in a patient and unrushed manner.” from the report
Family contact and activities
People were supported to take part in activities and to keep in touch with family and friends during the pandemic.
“People had been supported to maintain good contact with friends and families throughout the pandemic.” from the report
Too few staff
seriousStaffing levels were not enough to provide timely support. People said they had to wait, and inspectors observed that staff could not always support people according to their needs.
“Staffing levels were not adequate to ensure people received timely support.” from the report
Weak provider oversight
seriousThe provider did not ensure audits, checks and required notifications were completed during the registered manager's absence. This left important risks without proper oversight.
“There was no evidence the provider had oversight of the service.” from the report
Safety checks and infection control
seriousThe process for washing commodes was not appropriate, and lift and stair lift checks were late. The commode process was changed after the inspection following infection control advice.
“The home did not have an appropriate system in place for washing commodes.” from the report
Training and medicine competence
needs fixingRegular refresher training had not been maintained, and staff who administered medicines had not had their competence checked.
“Staff administering medicines had been trained, however regular training updates had not been provided.” from the report
Poor learning from incidents
seriousIncidents were not consistently monitored for themes or shared learning. This meant possible improvements and future risks might not be identified.
“There was no process for sharing lessons learnt.” from the report
- 01What staffing levels are now in place at each time of day, and how do you check they are enough for residents' needs?
- 02Have all lift, stair lift and other equipment checks been completed and kept within the required timescales?
- 03How do you now record, review and learn from accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns?
- 04Have all staff completed current refresher training, and have medicine administration competencies been checked?
- 05Who is now responsible for governance, audits and statutory notifications, and how is the provider checking that these are completed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; inspectors spoke with four people, one relative and 13 staff and reviewed a range of records. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 July 2021 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 Residential Home
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2021Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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 99 live-in carers within about an hour of Barnsley
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Ivy was very kind and gentle in all her dealings with my late mother. They got on very well and were able to share a joke and a laugh.”
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.