CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Park House Rest Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm. Inspectors found safe staffing and recruitment, good risk management, safe medicines systems and effective infection prevention.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not rated during this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not rated during this inspection, although inspectors observed kindness and compassion from staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not rated during this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was consistently managed and had effective checks to identify concerns and drive improvement. People, relatives and staff described the management as approachable and supportive.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and better leadership, with extra information needed for some 'as required' medicines.
Inspectors visited on 24 January 2022. They spoke with six people, six staff, an external professional and four relatives. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment and training records, and management documents.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments and good infection control. People and relatives said they felt safe, and staff treated people with kindness.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the last inspection, published in October 2019. Inspectors found stronger quality checks, approachable leadership and a consistent staff team. They noted that some information for 'as required' medicines needed to be added, and the manager said this would be reviewed.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had time to talk with people, and short-term absences were covered by familiar staff.
“Staff were patient and had time to sit and talk to people.” from the report
Medicines management
Medicines were administered by trained staff, records were complete and checks were carried out.
“Medicines were managed safely by trained and competent staff.” from the report
Kind and person-centred care
People and relatives said staff knew them well. Inspectors observed friendly, supportive conversations and care that reflected people's preferences.
“It was very clear that this has been achieved as staff knew people well and we observed friendly supportive conversations between people and all staff.” from the report
Infection control
The home had effective measures for preventing and managing infections, including checking vaccination requirements and using protective equipment safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Quality checks
The manager and provider used audits and feedback to monitor the home and make improvements.
“There were effective quality assurance procedures in place, which included audits of care plans, infection control, medicines, the environment and accidents and incidents.” from the report
Extra information for some medicines
needs fixingGuidance for medicines prescribed to be given 'as required' did not always explain enough about how each person might appear when they needed them. The manager said this would be reviewed and added.
“Protocols were in place for medicines that were prescribed to be administered on an 'as required' basis, although these needed to have some additional information specific to each person's need.” from the report
- 01What extra information has now been added to the guidance for each person's 'as required' medicines?
- 02How do you check that staff understand when and why each person may need an 'as required' medicine?
- 03What improvements were made after the previous Requires Improvement inspection?
- 04How do you make sure staffing levels remain enough when regular staff are absent?
- 05How are relatives kept informed about changes, accidents or incidents affecting their family member?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the report does not give current ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 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, October 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but risks and quality checks were not always managed well.
The inspection was unannounced and took place over two days. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. Records about care, medicines, staffing, incidents and management were also checked.
Inspectors found improvements since the previous inspection. There were enough staff, recruitment checks were safe, medicines were managed safely, and people were protected from abuse. Staff were kind, respectful and supported people with activities and choices.
However, some risks were not fully assessed or acted on. Care plans lacked enough detail, including for a soft diet and significant weight loss. Quality checks had not identified these issues or ensured they were dealt with quickly enough.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe and Well-led remained Requires Improvement. The home was no longer in breach of regulations, but it had received Requires Improvement at the last four inspections.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff supporting people with patience, compassion and gentle reassurance. Relatives and people also spoke positively about the care.
“We observed people were supported by staff who knew them well and treated them with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Enough staff
Staffing levels were based on people's needs, and inspectors found there were enough staff to provide safe care. Recruitment checks had also improved.
“Improvement had been made at this inspection and there were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were stored, ordered, given and disposed of safely. Staff competency checks and more frequent audits had been introduced.
“Medicines were managed safely. There were suitable systems in place to ensure that medicines were stored safely, ordered and disposed of correctly.” from the report
Nutrition risks were not acted on
seriousCare records did not give clear enough guidance for a person needing a soft diet. Another person had lost significant weight, but the cause had not been reviewed and medical advice had not been sought.
“No action had been taken to review this and consider the causes. Medical advice was not sought.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingCare plans contained relevant information but did not always explain clearly how staff should manage risks. End of life plans also lacked detail.
“Risk assessments required updating, further detail adding, and clear actions taken, to ensure risks were managed safely.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe home had audits and improvement plans, but these had not identified or acted on all the concerns found by inspectors. More time was needed for improvements to become consistent.
“We could not be assured that the auditing process in place was promptly identifying issues and ensuring prompt action was taken, where required.” from the report
Kitchen surfaces needed replacement
minorSome kitchen worktops were damaged and could not be cleaned effectively. The provider took immediate action to arrange replacement.
“However, some kitchen worktops had damage to them, which meant they could not be effectively cleaned to prevent infection risks.” from the report
- 01How do you now identify and respond to weight loss, poor nutrition and other dietary risks?
- 02How are care plans checked to make sure they give staff clear instructions about each person's risks and needs?
- 03What changes have been made to the quality audits since this inspection, and how do you know they are finding problems promptly?
- 04How are end of life wishes recorded and kept up to date?
- 05What progress has been made since the inspection, and what will be checked at the next re-inspection?
This was a planned inspection of all five CQC questions, covering both the care provided and the care home environment. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 October 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 Rest Home
7 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- February 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Inspected but not ratedSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 June 2015.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.