CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Park Lane Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some medicines were not administered in line with prescription instructions. Some risk and moving and handling plans also lacked important detail, although staffing, recruitment and safeguarding arrangements were found to be sound.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, nutrition and hydration needs were monitored and acted on. Staff had training and support, although further training for complex conditions was planned.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was planned around people's needs and interests, with group and one-to-one activities. Inspectors noted that care plans were not always clearly shown to have been shared or reviewed with people or relatives.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was described as open and inclusive. The home used audits, meetings, surveys and partnership working to monitor quality and gather views.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good overall, but Safe was Requires Improvement because medicine instructions and some risk records were not always followed or complete.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 5 December 2018. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and reviewed care files, medicine records, recruitment records and other checks.
People generally said they felt safe, cared for and listened to. Inspectors found kind and respectful staff, enough staff to meet people's needs, good support with health, food and activities, and an open management team.
The overall rating stayed Good, as did Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Safe fell from Good to Requires Improvement because some medicines were not given exactly as prescribed and some risk and moving and handling records lacked detail.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff's kindness. Inspectors saw staff protect people's dignity and privacy during personal care.
“People said staff were caring and kind towards them.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found sufficient staff with the right skills for the people living in the home. People said help was available when needed.
“There were sufficient staff with the right skills to meet people's needs.” from the report
Good health support
People's healthcare, food and drink needs were monitored. Staff worked with healthcare professionals and referred people for help when needed.
“People's healthcare was monitored and actioned when needed.” from the report
Activities and personal interests
The home offered group and one-to-one activities, and supported some people to go out into the local community.
“The service employed two activities people to help people enjoy a variety of interests and hobbies.” from the report
Open management
Staff felt listened to and valued. The home sought views from people, relatives and staff and used audits to monitor the service.
“The management approach was open and inclusive.” from the report
Medicines were not always given as prescribed
seriousInspectors saw medicines given in ways that did not always follow the prescription or dispensing label. Staff had not completed competency checks since the new electronic system was installed.
“medicines were not always given in accordance with the prescribed instructions.” from the report
Some safety plans lacked detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not clearly record risks linked to epilepsy, diabetes or oxygen use. A seizure plan was put in place after inspectors raised the issue.
“Not all risks had been clearly identified or planned for with people's individual care plans.” from the report
Moving and handling records
seriousSome plans did not state the type of hoist or sling needed, even though staff knew what equipment to use. Inspectors said missing documentation could increase risk.
“Some moving and handling plans included the support needed, but did not include type of hoist or sling.” from the report
Creams were not always recorded
minorRecords for topical creams, ointments and sprays were not completed consistently. Inspectors found no evidence that people's skin had been harmed.
“These were not consistently completed.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure every medicine is given exactly as prescribed?
- 02How are staff now checked as competent to use the electronic medicine system and give medicines by different routes?
- 03How do you make sure each person's epilepsy, diabetes, oxygen and moving and handling risks are fully recorded and kept up to date?
- 04How do you check that topical creams, ointments and sprays are both applied and recorded?
- 05How are care plans shared with people and relatives and reviewed with them?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with the overall rating unchanged but Safe reduced from Good to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 January 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 Lane Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.