CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Park View Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were found to be safe, with enough staff, improved risk management and generally safe medicines administration, storage, ordering and disposal. Some medicine records were incomplete, so the provider was asked to review its record keeping.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management systems and quality checks had improved, and staff understood their roles. Some care-monitoring records were still not fully completed, so the provider was asked to review them.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safer care and improved management, but some medicines and care-monitoring records were incomplete.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 4 and 11 May 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, monitoring charts, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safer risk management, generally safe medicines management, good infection control and improved quality checks. People and relatives described staff as kind and caring, and said the atmosphere had improved.
There were still gaps in records. Some medicine records, including records for creams and patches, were not complete. Monitoring records for people's food, fluids and general care were also not always fully completed. The inspectors made two recommendations, but found no current breaches of regulations.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Agency use had reduced, and recruitment checks were being followed.
“Enough staff were deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Clean and safe environment
The home was clean and tidy, and inspectors were assured that infection prevention procedures and equipment were being used safely.
“The home was clean and tidy throughout.” from the report
Kind staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff, describing them as kind, caring and compassionate. Inspectors also found that the atmosphere had improved.
“People and their relatives commented on the kind, caring and compassionate nature of staff.” from the report
Improved management
The management team had improved quality checks, acted on earlier feedback and created a more welcoming and calm culture.
“The culture and atmosphere in the home had improved since our last inspection.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingInspectors found incomplete recording for some medicines, including creams and patches. They found no evidence that anyone had been harmed, but recommended further review.
“We found some issues with recordings of medicines, including the application of topical medicines (creams), and medicines in the form of patches.” from the report
Care monitoring records
needs fixingRecords about people's food, fluids and general care had improved but were not always fully completed. The provider was asked to review this.
“record keeping in relation to monitoring people's care, needed further review as staff had not always fully completed these records.” from the report
Do not resuscitate records
needs fixingInspectors found two records where it was unclear whether the person wanted a do not resuscitate document in place. They asked the manager to review these with the GP.
“it was not clear from discussions with them that they wanted a do not resuscitate document in place.” from the report
- 01How are you checking that records for creams and medicine patches are completed correctly?
- 02How will you make sure food, fluid and other care-monitoring charts are fully completed?
- 03What was the outcome of the review of the two unclear do not resuscitate documents with the GP?
- 04What changes have been made since the previous Requires Improvement inspection, and how are you checking that they continue?
- 05How will you keep families informed about the serious injury incident that remains under CQC investigation?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Caring, Effective and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection, and the serious injury incident was not examined. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 May 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 2022
Park View Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but unsafe medicines management and weak risk checks.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 26 and 27 September 2022. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led. They spoke with 13 people, 15 relatives and 19 staff, and checked care records, medicines, staff recruitment files and management records.
People said they felt safe and enjoyed living at the home. Permanent staff were described as kind and caring. There were enough staff to meet people's needs, although agency staff were sometimes used. The home was clean and infection control procedures had improved since the previous inspection.
Inspectors found medicines were not always stored or given safely. Records about food, fluids, turning people in bed and other risks were incomplete. Quality checks had not always found or fixed these problems. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement, and the overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection.
Kind and caring staff
People and relatives spoke warmly about the permanent staff team. People said they felt cared for and that staff tried to sort out worries.
“People and relatives were very complimentary about the kindness and caring attitude of the permanent staff team.” from the report
Enough staff and good recruitment checks
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and saw staff respond promptly. Recruitment checks were robust, although agency workers were sometimes needed.
“There was enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff responded in a timely manner when people needed support.” from the report
Clean home and improved infection control
The home was clean and tidy, and inspectors were assured about infection prevention. The provider had acted on the previous recommendation about infection control records.
“The home was clean and tidy throughout.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousSome medicines were stored above the recommended temperature. Thickener was left in unlocked cupboards, and records did not always show that creams or patches were used as prescribed.
“Medicines were not always managed safely.” from the report
Mixed staff views about management
needs fixingStaff gave different accounts of communication, confidentiality, support and whether concerns were listened to. The provider put a communication plan in place.
“There were mixed views from staff, even though a staff survey in May had been positive.” from the report
Activities were limited
minorPeople, relatives and staff said activities could be better. The provider sent inspectors a plan for additional activities, and the CQC made a recommendation to review them.
“Activities were limited; however, the provider was reviewing this.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure medicines are stored at the correct temperature and that creams, patches and thickener are managed safely?
- 02How do you now check and record people's food, fluid intake, general observations and repositioning?
- 03What checks are made on specialist mattresses and the garden, and who reviews the results?
- 04How will you show that quality audits identify problems and that the same problems do not happen again?
- 05What activities are now available for each person's needs, and how do you gather feedback about them?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Caring, Effective and Responsive were not inspected and the previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 November 2022 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 Home
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2021Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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
30 live-in carers within about an hour of North Tyneside
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 £1,130 a week. 26 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.