CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Park View Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Park View Care Centre rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but risks, medicines records and oversight still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 16 and 17 November 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home had improved since its previous Inadequate rating. People and relatives said they felt safer and that the culture, staffing, food, activities and handling of complaints had improved. Caring and Responsive were rated Good.
Important problems remained. Risk assessments and care guidance were not always accurate or detailed enough. Medicines were not always recorded or managed safely. The provider's checks had not yet made sure these problems were consistently found and corrected.
The home had been in Special Measures and had restrictions on new admissions and urgent conditions linked to choking, malnutrition and dehydration. Improvements meant it was no longer Inadequate or in Special Measures, and the conditions were removed. The provider remained in breach of Regulations 12 and 17 and must submit an action plan.
Kind and respectful care
Staff respected people's choices, privacy and dignity. They supported people to remain as independent as possible.
“Staff promoted people's dignity, they knocked on people's doors before entering and spoke with people in a respectful way.” from the report
Personalised activities
People could choose whether to join activities. Activities were adapted to individual interests, including gardening, trips and spiritual support.
“Activities had been personalised for people, one person did not enjoy communal activities, but they loved gardening, and had a mini garden on their windowsill.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Accidents and incidents were investigated, and actions such as sensor mats or increased observation were used to reduce further risk.
“Accidents and incidents had been recorded, analysed and changes had been made to reduce the risk of them happening again.” from the report
Improved staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs during the inspection. Staff or regular agency staff covered sickness and leave.
“At this inspection, there were enough staff to support people safely.” from the report
Better complaints handling
Complaints were recorded on an electronic system with outcomes and actions. People and relatives said they were more confident that concerns would be taken seriously.
“At this inspection complaints were logged on an electronic system, where the process could be followed through and recorded when each stage had been completed.” from the report
Incomplete risk guidance
seriousSome care plans did not describe people's current needs or give staff enough specific guidance. This included moving and handling, distress and falls risks.
“The provider had not consistently assessed and provided guidance to mitigate risks to people's health and welfare.” from the report
Medicines were not consistently safe
seriousSome when-required medicine instructions were missing or incorrect. Records did not always explain why insulin was late or not given, or how distress had been managed.
“The provider had failed to ensure people received their medicines safely.” from the report
Records and oversight
seriousThe provider's improvement systems had not yet become reliable. Records were not always accurate, complete or up to date, and similar concerns had continued across four inspections.
“The provider had failed to maintain an accurate, complete, and contemporaneous record in respect of each person.” from the report
End of life training
needs fixingStaff still had not received training in end of life care, although the report found improvements in responding to changes in people's health.
“At this inspection, staff had still not received end of life training, though, improvements had been made in responding to changes in people's health.” from the report
Future staffing levels
needs fixingStaff said staffing was adequate at the inspection but were worried about whether there would be enough staff if more people moved in.
“Staff told us, staffing was adequate now, but they were concerned when numbers increased.” from the report
- 01How have you checked that every person's risk assessment and care guidance is accurate and reflects their current needs?
- 02What changes have you made to make sure medicines records, including insulin and when-required medicines, are complete and correct?
- 03How will you make sure there are enough staff if more people are admitted?
- 04When will all staff receive end of life care training, and how will you check that it has improved practice?
- 05What action plan has been sent to CQC for the breaches of Regulations 12 and 17, and what progress has been made?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, the premises, care and nursing provided, infection control, records, staffing and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 December 2023 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 2023
Park View Care Centre was rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious risks involving choking, nutrition, staffing, medicines and management.
Inspectors visited unannounced on four days in May and June 2023. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff recruitment records and management records.
People were at serious risk because choking, malnutrition and dehydration risks were not properly assessed, managed or monitored. Medicines were not always given as prescribed. There were not enough staff to provide timely care, and staff did not always have the required training.
Inspectors also found that people were not always treated with dignity, involved in decisions or supported to remain independent. Complaints and incidents were not consistently investigated. Records and quality checks were not reliable enough to identify and correct these problems.
The overall rating changed from Requires Improvement to Inadequate. Safe and Well-led were rated Inadequate, while Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Requires Improvement. The home was placed in special measures, meaning CQC will keep it under review and may take further action if there is not enough improvement.
Safer recruitment
Inspectors found that recruitment checks were completed, including references, identity and right-to-work checks, interviews and DBS checks.
“Staff had been recruited safely.” from the report
Some infection controls
The home was generally clean and hygienic, and inspectors were assured about several infection prevention measures, including the use of protective equipment.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Healthcare access
People were supported to see a GP when needed, and the GP visited the home weekly.
“People were supported to see their GP when needed and the GP visited the service weekly.” from the report
Kind and respectful care from some staff
Some relatives said that individual carers were kind, compassionate and respectful. Relatives also said staff usually protected privacy during personal care.
“Some relatives were complimentary about staff and the way their loved ones were supported.” from the report
Choking, nutrition and hydration risks
seriousCare plans and risk assessments were incomplete or not followed. People were not always given the right food texture, positioned safely, supported to eat or offered enough fluids.
“People were at serious risk of harm as risks associated with choking, malnutrition and dehydration had not been fully assessed, mitigated or monitored.” from the report
Medicines not managed safely
seriousSome medicines were not given as prescribed, and a medicine that should not have been crushed was given in an unsafe way.
“People did not receive their medicines safely. People did not always receive their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Too few staff
seriousPeople sometimes waited for long periods or had to call out before receiving help. Staffing levels also limited time outside bedrooms and social contact.
“There were not enough staff to provide people with timely and safe care.” from the report
Dignity and involvement
seriousPeople were not always treated with dignity or involved in decisions about their care. Their independence was not consistently promoted.
“Staff did not always treat people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Complaints not followed up
needs fixingPeople and relatives said concerns were ignored or not answered. The complaints records did not fully reflect the concerns raised.
“The provider had failed to appropriately investigate and learn from complaints.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousQuality systems did not identify serious problems with care, records, medicines, training or risk management. The same regulatory breaches continued from earlier inspections.
“The provider had failed to operate effective governance and quality monitoring systems to ensure people receive safe and good quality care.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to assess and manage each person's choking, malnutrition and dehydration risks?
- 02How do you check that staff give the correct food textures, follow speech and language therapy guidance and support people to eat and drink?
- 03What staffing levels are now in place, and how do you check that people receive help promptly?
- 04How are medicines errors identified, investigated and prevented, including medicines that must not be crushed?
- 05How will families be involved in care reviews, best-interests decisions and investigations of complaints or incidents?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the inspection was prompted by concerns about safety and choking risks, while the circumstances of a reported death were not examined. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 November 2023 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 View Care Centre
9 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Requires improvement.
- December 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2023Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2022Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2021InadequateSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: 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.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.