CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Park Riding
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found individual risk assessments, suitable staffing, safe recruitment, emergency plans and systems for managing medicines.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Staff had suitable training and people received food, health support and care based on their needs. However, mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were missing for a small number of people.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with warmth, dignity and respect. People were supported to make daily choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, personalised and regularly reviewed. People had activities, support to maintain relationships and records of their end-of-life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff said the home was well led. Quality checks, meetings and feedback systems were in place, although the monitoring system had not identified the missing mental capacity records.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind and safe care, but mental capacity records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 July 2018. One inspector reviewed information held by the CQC, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional, observed care, looked around the home and checked care and staff records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. People told inspectors they felt safe, staff knew them well, and care was personalised. The home had enough staff, managed medicines safely and supported people to maintain their health and independence.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. For a small number of people whose health had deteriorated, the home had not recorded decision-specific mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions. The manager sent evidence after the inspection that this was being put right.
The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection on 23 November 2015. Inspectors found no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Individual risk management
Risk assessments reflected people's needs and gave staff clear guidance. Incidents and accidents were reviewed, with action taken to reduce future risks.
“Risk assessments were person centred and contained clear directions for staff to ensure risk was managed well.” from the report
Kind, respectful relationships
Inspectors saw warm relationships between people and staff. Staff understood people's preferences and supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“People looked comfortable and relaxed when interacting with staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans covered people's health, communication, social needs and preferences. Staff could describe the people they supported and how they liked to be cared for.
“We found care plans were person-centred and explained how people liked to be supported” from the report
Health and nutrition support
People were offered choices of meals, drinks and snacks. The home worked with health professionals and recorded their advice in care plans.
“The service had good relationships with community health services and we saw the advice of professionals was included in people's care plans” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor and improve care. Inspectors found the management team acted on concerns and views from people and relatives.
“Systems were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingFor a small number of people whose health had deteriorated, decision-specific mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions had not been recorded. The manager said these would be completed and later sent evidence of action.
“We found mental capacity assessments had not been completed for a small number of people whose conditions had deteriorated in recent months” from the report
Electrical safety certificate
minorThe home's electrical wiring certificate was not available when inspectors visited. The provider sent it after the inspection.
“The homes electrical wiring certificate was not available during our inspection.” from the report
Risk record for specific behaviour
minorOne care plan described a possible risk from a person's behaviour, but a separate risk assessment would have made the risk controls clearer. The manager said this would be completed immediately.
“A risk assessment may have been beneficial in ensuring the risk reduction methods were clearly recorded.” from the report
- 01Have all residents who may lack capacity now had decision-specific mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions recorded?
- 02How do you check that mental capacity records stay up to date when someone's health changes?
- 03Has the risk assessment for the person's specific behaviour been completed, and how are staff told about the agreed controls?
- 04Where is the home's current electrical wiring certificate, and when was the latest check completed?
- 05How do you identify and meet each person's communication needs, including for people who communicate non-verbally?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the overall rating remained Good, while Effective fell to Requires Improvement from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 August 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 Riding
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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 Kirklees
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 £1,260 a week. 86 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.”
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.