CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Park Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, managed risks, safe medicines, clean premises and infection control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had suitable training and support. People received suitable food and healthcare support, and the service followed the relevant decision-making processes when people lacked capacity.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions about their care and supported to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and changing circumstances. The home offered activities, welcomed visitors, responded to complaints and supported communication, faith and cultural needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management structure was clear and quality checks had improved. Inspectors found an open, inclusive and person-centred culture, with people and staff reporting positively about the management.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited on two unannounced days. They spoke with people using the service, relatives and staff, observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
They found enough suitably skilled staff, safe medicines management, clean premises and suitable risk checks. People described staff as kind and said their privacy, dignity, choices and independence were respected.
Care plans had improved and reflected people's current needs, preferences, communication needs and cultural or religious choices. Meals, activities and healthcare support were also viewed positively.
The overall rating and all five question ratings were Good. The previous rating was Requires improvement, with one breach of Regulation 17. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made and the service was no longer in breach.
Enough skilled staff
Inspectors found enough suitably skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. People and staff also said staffing levels supported safe and effective care.
“There were enough suitably skilled and experienced staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors observed that privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“Staff provided good quality care for people and they respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Personalised care records
Care plans and risk assessments had been reviewed and updated. They gave staff information about people's needs, preferences and how they wished to be cared for.
“Care plans were person centred and provided staff with information about how people wished to be cared for.” from the report
Food and dietary support
People had meal choices and their dietary, hydration and cultural needs were considered. Staff were patient and mealtimes were calm and relaxed.
“People were offered a choice of meals and the chef was very knowledgeable about people's dietary needs and preferences including specific cultural needs.” from the report
Improved oversight
The provider had introduced audits, governance meetings and senior management checks. Inspectors found that identified actions were addressed.
“There were systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you make sure my relative's care plan is kept up to date as their needs change?
- 02How many staff will usually be available during the day and night, and what happens if staffing levels change?
- 03How will you support my relative's dietary, cultural, religious and communication needs?
- 04What activities are available for people who spend time in their bedrooms?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in care reviews and respond to any concerns?
This was an unannounced inspection of both the care home and domiciliary care agency, covering all five CQC questions; the report records 37 people using the care home and 10 people receiving domiciliary care at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 December 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, November 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but important records, medicines processes and quality checks were not reliable.
This was a comprehensive inspection of the care home and domiciliary care service. Inspectors visited on five dates, including unannounced visits, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked eight care plans and nine medicines records.
People were generally kept safe, and there were enough staff. Staff were trained, people received support with food, drink and health needs, and inspectors saw kind interactions that respected privacy and dignity. However, some people and relatives said that a few staff could be rushed, short or unkind.
The main problems were incomplete or contradictory care plans, unclear medicines records, weak records about decisions for people who lacked mental capacity, and quality checks that did not lead to clear action. The overall rating and all five question ratings were Requires Improvement. The service was previously rated Good in November 2015, so this was a deterioration and the first Requires Improvement rating.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff speaking kindly to people, responding promptly and protecting their privacy and dignity.
“Our observations showed staff understood people and supported them with dignity and compassion.” from the report
Staffing and training
There were enough staff to meet people's care needs. Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisal.
“There were enough staff to provide support and ensure people's needs were met.” from the report
Food and health support
People received support with eating and drinking, their dietary preferences were recorded, and health professionals were involved when needed.
“People had enough to eat and drink and maintained a well-balanced diet.” from the report
Activities
The care home offered regular activities, including games, creative activities, singing and exercise.
“We observed staff carrying out activities of bingo, dominoes, and arts and crafts during our inspection.” from the report
Inaccurate care plans
seriousSome care plans lacked personal detail or contained contradictions. This could mean that people's needs were missed or not supported consistently.
“Care plans were not always an accurate and contemporaneous record of people's needs.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousSome records did not clearly show when medicines had been given or who had given them. Guidance for some medicines taken when needed was also unclear.
“We found five people had been prescribed and administered paracetamol, as PRN, but there were no records to show what times these had been administered.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingRecords did not show how some decisions had been made in people's best interests or why they were the least restrictive option.
“We did not see records of best interest meetings or decision-making when people lacked capacity and decisions had been made in their best interests.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits did not reliably identify the problems found by inspectors, and action plans were often missing when issues were found.
“Systems used to monitor the quality of the service were not yet fully effective in identifying concerns and protecting people from risks to their health, safety and well-being.” from the report
- 01How have you corrected the incomplete, contradictory or out-of-date care plans identified in the inspection?
- 02How do you now record medicines given when needed, creams, pain relief and time-specific medicines?
- 03How do you record mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions, including decisions about chair sensors or hidden medicines?
- 04What action plans are now used when audits find problems, and how do you check that the action has been completed?
- 05How do you monitor feedback about staff being rushed, short or lacking compassion?
This was a comprehensive inspection of both the care home and domiciliary care service, using visits, telephone calls, observations and records; both services were included in the ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 November 2018 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 Lodge
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 October 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 Leeds
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 £1,250 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.