CQC report explained · a residential care 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. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, and infection control arrangements were effective, although some recruitment records and staffing allocation records needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was consistently managed and staff promoted person-centred care. Some relatives said communication could be better, and the manager was taking action to involve families more.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but some records and communication with relatives needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection over four days in December 2023. Inspectors met people living in the home, contacted relatives, spoke with staff and other professionals, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
People were supported to make choices and be independent. Inspectors found kind care, enough staff, safe medicines practice, infection controls and safeguarding arrangements. The home worked with other agencies and the manager acted on issues found.
Some improvements were needed. Recruitment records had gaps, records of one-to-one and two-to-one staffing needed to be clearer, and some relatives wanted better communication and more activities. The overall rating was Good, but this inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led. The other ratings carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Choice and independence
Staff supported people to make decisions, build on their strengths and live meaningful everyday lives.
“People were supported to have maximum possible choice, control and independence.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff provided compassionate care and protected people's privacy and dignity.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, and staff were trained and checked as competent to give medicines.
“There were enough staff to safely care for people.” from the report
Active management
The manager reviewed incidents and service systems, and took action when improvements were identified.
“The registered manager critically reviewed the operation of the service and actively made changes to the improve the service, as and when these were needed.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingSome staff files did not fully show employment histories, DBS checks and current photographs. The management team was working to address these gaps.
“However, there were some gaps such as evidence to demonstrate employment histories had been fully explored, what DBS evidence had been requested and current photographs.” from the report
Communication with relatives
needs fixingSome relatives said they did not receive enough information and had to contact the home to find out how their family member was.
“Staff don't really communicate well. This is the issue I have. I have to ring and ask them how he is.” from the report
Activities and going out
minorSome relatives felt people would benefit from more activities and more support to go out. The manager was trying to improve this.
“Some relatives felt people would benefit from experiencing a wider range of activities, which the registered manager was trying to facilitate.” from the report
- 01How are you improving communication with relatives about changes and about how people are doing?
- 02How do you record and check the one-to-one or two-to-one staffing my relative receives?
- 03What activities and opportunities to go out are now available, and how are they matched to each person's wishes?
- 04How have you completed the missing employment history, DBS evidence and photograph checks in staff files?
- 05How will my relative and family be involved in discussions about their care and support needs?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 2024 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, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control measures during a targeted COVID-19 inspection.
The inspection took place on 4 March 2021 and was announced. It was a targeted inspection linked to the coronavirus pandemic, looking at infection prevention and control in the home.
Inspectors found systems to reduce the spread of infection. Staff and visitors had temperature checks, visitors had lateral flow tests, and suitable protective equipment was available. The home was clean, with extra cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
Staff had infection-control training and the home carried out checks on its practices and protective equipment. People were supported to keep in touch with family through calls and socially distanced garden visits.
The home was inspected but not rated overall. Safe was also marked inspected but not rated, so this report does not provide a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
Visitor checks
Visitors had temperature checks, health declarations, hand sanitiser and lateral flow tests before entering.
“Every visitor had to have a lateral flow test, complete a health declaration and use hand sanitiser upon entering the home.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and extra cleaning took place, including on frequently touched surfaces.
“The environment was clean. Additional cleaning was taking place around the home, including of frequently touched surfaces.” from the report
Protective equipment
The home had supplies of masks, aprons, gloves and visors, with weekly stock checks.
“There was sufficient PPE such as masks, aprons, gloves and visors.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had infection-control training, and checks were made to observe their practice and competence.
“Staff had undertaken training in Infection prevention and control (IPC) as well as putting on and taking off PPE.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to stay in contact with relatives through video or telephone calls and socially distanced garden visits.
“People were supported to keep in touch with their family members via video or telephone calls as well as socially distanced garden visits.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection-control arrangements are in place now for visitors, including testing and protective equipment?
- 02How often are frequently touched surfaces cleaned, and how is this checked?
- 03How do you check that staff remain competent in putting on and taking off protective equipment?
- 04What arrangements are currently used to support residents to keep in touch with their families?
- 05What is the home's current overall CQC rating, given that this inspection was not rated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not rate the other four questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 March 2021 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
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Sunderland
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 £950 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.