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.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and there were enough staff to meet their needs. Risks and medicines were generally managed safely, although inspectors found inconsistent falls information in one person's records and some recruitment and medicine transport records needing attention.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed, staff were trained and people were supported with food, drinks and healthcare. Inspectors found some environmental hazards, including a ladder on a balcony and rusty tools stored outside.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives were positive about the care. Staff were kind and respectful, supported independence and involved people in decisions, although some people and relatives said they had not been involved in reviewing care plans.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Staff knew people well, but care plans were generic and did not fully describe individual preferences. End-of-life plans contained basic details but lacked personal information.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive culture, open management and systems for checking quality and safety. The managers understood their legal responsibilities and acted on complaints and incidents.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found that personalised care plans and end-of-life plans needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 26 September 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with 10 people, six relatives and six members of staff. They also reviewed three care records, complaints, audits and other records.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective and caring care, and for being well-led. People said they felt safe and were happy with their care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, good training and kind, respectful staff.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being responsive. Care plans were too general and did not always explain each person's individual preferences. End-of-life plans contained only basic information and needed to be more personal. Inspectors also found some hazards in the building and recommended that these were managed safely.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection on 28 February 2017. The home was not placed in special measures in this report.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were positive about the care. Inspectors observed staff speaking kindly and supporting people at their own pace.
“We observed that people were treated well by staff. Staff spoke with people in a kind and respectful way.” from the report
Good food and healthcare support
People had choices about meals, snacks and drinks, and could eat in their rooms if they preferred. They could see a GP and other healthcare professionals when needed.
“People were supported nutritionally in accordance with their needs. There were snack and drinks available throughout the home for people to help themselves to if they wished.” from the report
Open management
The home had audits and checks, responded to complaints and encouraged staff to reflect when things went wrong.
“There was a culture of openness and transparency at the service.” from the report
Care plans were too general
needs fixingCare plans did not always record the individual ways people wanted to be supported, even though staff knew these details. Inspectors recommended that care planning be reviewed.
“We found that using this system, care plans were quite generic and lacked details that were unique to each individual.” from the report
End-of-life plans lacked detail
needs fixingEnd-of-life plans recorded some basic wishes but did not fully describe how each person wanted their care to be provided.
“However, the plans lacked person centred details that truly reflected how people wanted their end of life to be.” from the report
Some building hazards
needs fixingInspectors found a ladder stored on a person's balcony and old, including rusty, tools in an outside area. They recommended a review of the premises to manage potential hazards safely.
“We recommend the provider reviews the premises to ensure that all potential hazards are managed safely.” from the report
Some records and procedures needed attention
needs fixingInspectors found inconsistent falls risk information for one person. Staff photo identification was not kept on recruitment files, and there was no risk assessment for returning medicines requiring extra security to the pharmacy.
“It is important that people's care files contain consistent information to ensure the person gets care that meets their needs.” from the report
- 01How have you made care plans more personalised since the inspection, and how do residents and relatives help review them?
- 02How do you record and update each person's end-of-life wishes and preferences?
- 03What action was taken about the ladder on the balcony and the old or rusty tools in the outside area?
- 04How do you make sure risk information in care records is consistent and up to date?
- 05What risk assessment is now used when medicines requiring extra security are returned to the pharmacy?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at all five CQC questions, including both the care provided and the home's premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 November 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and legal knowledge needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 January 2017. Inspectors spoke with 14 people living at the home, relatives, visitors and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, rotas, complaints and quality checks.
The inspectors rated the home Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and praised staff for being kind, respectful and attentive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable training, personalised care plans, safe medicines practice and a range of activities.
There were two points to improve. Food and fluid records were not always completed fully, and the registered manager was not up to date with important changes to the law about liberty safeguards. The fluid-record issue was addressed during the inspection, and the manager agreed to do further research and training.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff were not rushed and responded promptly when people needed help.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. Staff were not rushed in their duties and had time to chat with people.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences and routines. Staff understood how individuals wanted to be supported.
“People's care plans were detailed, personalised and were regularly reviewed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff sought permission, respected privacy and dignity, and encouraged people to remain as independent as possible.
“We observed staff providing care and attention to people during the inspection. They were polite and courteous and provided reassurance and spoke in a caring and compassionate way.” from the report
Activities and interests
People could take part in group and individual activities, follow hobbies and use the minibus for trips and shopping.
“People had opportunities to take part in a variety of social activities and to pursue their hobbies and interests.” from the report
Open management
The manager was visible and approachable. Staff, people and relatives were encouraged to give feedback and make suggestions.
“The registered manager adopted an open and inclusive style of leadership.” from the report
Food and fluid records
needs fixingFood and fluid monitoring records were not always completed thoroughly. The manager addressed this during the inspection and told staff about the changes.
“However, food and fluid intake records were not always completed thoroughly.” from the report
Knowledge of liberty safeguards
needs fixingThe manager was not aware of key legal changes relating to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They said they would do further research and training.
“She was not aware of key changes to the law in relation to DoLS.” from the report
- 01How are food and fluid records checked now, and what happens if a record is incomplete?
- 02What further training or research has the manager completed about Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards?
- 03How do you review staffing levels when people's needs change?
- 04How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and making changes?
- 05What activities and outings would be available for my relative based on their interests and abilities?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 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 Residential Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North Somerset
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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.