CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Park Lodge Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, risks were assessed and managed, medicines were handled safely and there were enough staff. Inspectors noted some wardrobes did not feel secure and a portable medicine cabinet had a broken fixing.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care plans reflected their health and personal needs. People liked the food, were supported to stay hydrated and could access healthcare services.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people kindly and respectfully, encouraged independence and understood how people preferred to be supported. People and families were involved in care decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and kept up to date. The home supported communication needs, offered activities and had a complaints process available to people and visitors.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People and staff described a strong team spirit and a family feel. Managers were approachable, used regular audits and acted on people's views, although care records were not always kept in a locked cabinet.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Park Lodge Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few minor issues identified.
This was an unannounced planned inspection by one inspector on 2 and 6 March 2020. The inspector spoke with people, staff and managers, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe, liked the food and were treated kindly. Staff knew people's needs and supported their choices, health and independence.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, clean premises and personalised care plans. They also found a friendly team culture, regular checks on quality and activities that reflected people's interests.
A few minor issues were found, including some wardrobes that did not feel secure, a broken fixing for a portable medicine cabinet, and care records not always being kept in a locked cabinet. The provider said the minor issues had been addressed after the inspection.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and trusted the staff. Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report abuse.
“People told us they felt safe at the service and trusted the staff who supported them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, respected their privacy and encouraged them to remain independent. Inspectors saw this in the way staff interacted with people.
“People told us staff always treated them kindly and respectfully and encouraged their independence.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected individual needs and preferences, and staff understood how to provide the planned care. People's communication needs were also identified and supported.
“Care plans were personalised, reflecting each person's individual needs and preferences as regards their care.” from the report
Good leadership and teamwork
People and staff described a supportive culture with good morale. Managers used meetings, audits and feedback to oversee the service and improve care.
“There was a strong ethos of team work.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered several activities two days a week and helped people continue hobbies and interests. Activities could sometimes be taken to people in their rooms.
“Some people chose to stay in their rooms. Where possible, activities such as the pets-as-therapy dog visited them there as well as spending time in the lounge.” from the report
Some wardrobes were not secure
needs fixingInspectors found that some wardrobes did not feel secure. The manager said this would be put right.
“Some wardrobes did not feel secure, and the registered manager undertook to rectify this.” from the report
Medicine cabinet fixing
needs fixingA fixing that secured a portable medicine cabinet had broken. A replacement was ordered during the inspection.
“An attachment that fixed a portable cabinet in place had broken. A new attachment was ordered during the inspection.” from the report
Care records not always locked
needs fixingCare records were kept in a lockable cabinet, but it was not always locked when staff were not nearby. The provider planned to introduce electronic records.
“People's care records were stored in a lockable filing cabinet. This was not always locked when there were no staff nearby.” from the report
Complaints policy needed updating
minorThe manager said the complaints policy would be updated so its references to the Local Government Ombudsman and CQC were correct.
“The registered manager said they would update the complaints policy, so it made correct reference to the Local Government Ombudsman and to CQC” from the report
- 01Have the wardrobes that inspectors found did not feel secure now been repaired or secured?
- 02Has the fixing for the portable medicine cabinet been replaced, and how is medicine storage checked now?
- 03How are paper care records kept locked when staff are not nearby?
- 04Has the complaints policy been updated with the correct information about the Local Government Ombudsman and CQC?
- 05How many activities are currently offered, and how are activities adapted for people who stay in their rooms?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 March 2020 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, August 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, although some people felt more staff were needed at times.
The inspection was unannounced and took place over two days. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, a relative, staff and the manager. They also checked care records, staff recruitment files, medicines, audits and other management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from harm, medicines were managed safely and staff had suitable training and support.
People described staff as kind and respectful. Care plans gave staff up-to-date guidance about individual needs and preferences. People enjoyed the food and had choices, healthcare support and activities suited to their interests.
The home had remained Good since the previous inspection in July 2015. Inspectors found systems for complaints, feedback and quality checks were working effectively.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and risks were assessed and managed.
“People were protected from harm. Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and understood what to do if they were concerned about someone.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with respect and took time to understand their history, preferences and comfort. People's dignity and independence were promoted.
“Staff were caring and compassionate with a thoughtful approach and interest in the people they supported.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities were developed around people's interests and abilities. Staff offered both group activities and individual time.
“There was a new activities co-ordinator and they had taken a thoughtful approach to finding out what people liked to do and how they enjoyed spending their time.” from the report
Good management checks
The manager sought feedback from people, relatives, staff and visitors. Audits covered areas including care plans, medicines and fire equipment.
“A range of quality assurance audits were carried out regularly to make sure staff were aware of what was working well in the home and any issues or changes that were required.” from the report
Staffing at busy times
minorTwo people said they felt more staff were needed. The manager said staffing levels would be reviewed and further feedback would be sought.
“Two of the people we spoke with said they felt more staff were required” from the report
Response times could vary
minorPeople generally said staff responded quickly, but some said this depended on how busy staff were.
“Some people commented that the responsiveness of staff did depend on how busy staff were.” from the report
- 01How have staffing levels changed since the inspection, especially at tea-time and during activities?
- 02How do you make sure people receive prompt help when staff are busy?
- 03How are activities matched to my relative's interests, abilities and health needs?
- 04How will you keep medicines records and checks accurate over time?
- 05How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed, and how will their family be involved?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, based on visits on 18 and 24 July 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 August 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 Lodge Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Park Lodge Residential Care Home →
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Park Lodge Residential Care Home →
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 December 2010.
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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.