CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Park View Care Home with Nursing
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but serious safety, training and management shortcomings.
Inspectors visited on four days in July and August 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals. They observed care, checked the home, and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff training and quality checks.
They found unsafe medicines systems and inconsistent management of risks, including pressure damage, diabetes care, eating and drinking, and wound care. Care records were often incomplete or out of date. Staff training and inductions were not sufficient, especially after high staff turnover and agency use.
People were treated with kindness and dignity. The home supported people's healthcare, nutrition, communication, activities and family visits. However, management oversight was ineffective, with unclear responsibilities and quality checks that had not identified or fixed important problems.
The overall rating remains Requires Improvement, as do Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led. Caring is rated Good. The home had also been rated Requires Improvement at the previous inspection and has now had this rating for two consecutive inspections.
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with kindness and dignity. Staff respected privacy and encouraged people to do what they could for themselves.
“People were treated with respect and kindness by staff who respected each person's individuality.” from the report
Protection from abuse
Inspectors found systems to recognise, report and investigate possible abuse. People and relatives said they felt safe.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Food and healthcare support
The home supported people's nutritional needs and worked with healthcare professionals. Staff took account of different diets and people's food preferences.
“The mealtime experience was pleasant, and people's individual needs were met.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were offered activities based on their interests and feedback. Visitors were welcomed and people were supported to maintain relationships.
“People were provided with and supported to participate in activities to help maintain their social health.” from the report
Medicines records and instructions
seriousInstructions for medicines needed when required were not always person-centred or accurate. Administration records and records for creams were not always completed, so inspectors could not be assured medicines were given as prescribed.
“Medicine administration records were not always completed correctly therefore we were not assured people had their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Risk and pressure care
seriousRisk assessments and care plans were not consistently accurate, current or detailed enough. Inspectors found that pressure damage and a wound were not being monitored and recorded adequately.
“The provider was unable to demonstrate people were receiving adequate support to prevent damage to their skin.” from the report
Staff training and induction
seriousTraining levels were low in areas including diabetes, pressure area care, oral care and end of life care. Agency staff sometimes received only a basic induction and were not familiar with people's needs.
“Staff had not received all the training required to meet people's needs effectively.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousManagement responsibilities were unclear. Audits and other checks had not been completed consistently and had failed to identify important problems.
“The provider's systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service had not been operated effectively.” from the report
Inconsistent care planning
needs fixingSome care plans contained useful personal information, but others were generic or out of date. This could leave staff without the information needed to provide consistent care.
“The quality of care plans varied greatly; some contained person-centred information abut people, whereas others were generic.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the medicines system since the inspection, and how do you check that medicines and creams are recorded correctly?
- 02How are pressure damage, wounds, diabetes, eating and drinking risks assessed and reviewed for each person?
- 03What percentage of staff have now completed training in pressure area care, diabetes, oral care and end of life care?
- 04How do you make sure agency staff receive a full induction and understand each person's needs and preferences?
- 05Who is now responsible for management oversight, and how do you check that care records and quality audits are accurate and up to date?
This was a full inspection covering all five key questions, including medicines, pressure care, staffing, infection control, care records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 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.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Park View Care Home with Nursing is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found medicines and quality checks were not always managed safely.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 22 April and 3 May 2022. Two inspectors and a pharmacist inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff. They looked at care records, medicines, recruitment records, the building and how the home was managed.
The main concerns were medicines and record keeping. Inspectors found gaps in medicine records, differences between stock counts and records, and some inaccurate care records. Audits had identified some problems but had not consistently led to improvement. The home acted quickly during the inspection to address some of these issues.
People said they felt safe and received help quickly. Staff were described as caring and knowledgeable, and the home was clean and homely. The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe remained Requires Improvement, while Well-led changed from Good to Requires Improvement.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe in the home. Staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns.
“A relative described the home as, "secure and safe" and a person who lived at the home commented, " I feel safe here, that's what counts.” from the report
Quick help from staff
Inspectors saw call bells answered quickly. People said they did not have to wait long for help.
“During the inspection, call bells were answered quickly, and staff were patient with people.” from the report
Suitable recruitment checks
The home completed references, criminal record checks, interviews and risk assessments before staff started work.
“References and criminal record checks were carried out prior to prospective employees starting to work at the home” from the report
Caring and knowledgeable staff
Inspectors found that people were cared for by staff who understood their needs and had appropriate training and support.
“People were cared for in a safe, clean and homely environment by staff who were caring, competent and knowledgeable about people's needs.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousRecords did not always show whether medicines, creams and supplements had been given correctly. Stock quantities did not always match the records, and some doses or reasons for missed medicines were not recorded.
“Medicines were not always managed safely. This placed people at risk of avoidable harm.” from the report
Checks did not prevent repeated problems
seriousThe home's audits had identified differences in medicine counts, but staff did not always report these and the checks did not consistently produce improvement.
“These did not always drive improvement. For example, medicine counts and the medicines remaining did not always match.” from the report
Some care records were inaccurate
needs fixingInspectors found errors in two of the seven care records reviewed. One incident had not been recorded as a fall on the electronic system.
“Some care records were not consistently accurate. We reviewed seven people's care records and found errors in records relating to two people.” from the report
PPE was not always used correctly
minorInspectors saw staff wearing masks below their noses or lowering them when speaking. The manager took action during the inspection.
“We were not always assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure every medicine dose, missed dose and variable dose is recorded correctly?
- 02How do you now check that medicine stock counts match the records, and what happens when they do not?
- 03What evidence can you show that the additional audits have led to sustained improvement?
- 04How do you check that care records accurately describe falls, risks and current care needs?
- 05How do you monitor correct PPE use by staff?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other key question ratings were not inspected and the overall rating was calculated using ratings from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 July 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 with Nursing
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- November 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Park View Care Home with Nursing →
- July 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Park View Care Home with Nursing →
- December 2021GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 August 2019.
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
32 live-in carers within about an hour of Blackpool
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 £1,250 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during 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.