CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Park View Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and safely managed medicines, but gaps in risk records, the environment and management checks could put people at risk.
Inspectors made unannounced visits on 23 and 28 February 2023. They spoke with relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and the home's quality checks.
People and relatives said people felt safe and staff were kind. Medicines were generally managed safely, and staff knew how to respond to abuse and distress. However, some risk assessments and daily records were not up to date or complete. The building also needed to be cleaner and better maintained, and people had limited opportunities to practise everyday skills such as cooking, cleaning and laundry.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. This means the inspectors found limited assurance that care was consistently safe and that management systems were reliably identifying and fixing problems. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 21 November 2018.
Kind support
Relatives said staff were kind and supportive. Inspectors also observed kind and compassionate interactions.
“People and their families told us staff were kind and supported them well.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Staff had safeguarding training and understood how and when to report concerns. People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe.
“Staff had received appropriate safeguarding training and were aware of how and when concerns should be raised.” from the report
Medicines management
Medicines were stored correctly and records were accurate. Staff were trained and their competence was checked regularly, although some medicines issues still needed attention.
“Medicines were stored appropriately, in locked storage within people's rooms, temperature checks were undertaken, and action taken if required.” from the report
Community access
People were supported to use the local community.
“People were supported by staff to access the local community.” from the report
Out-of-date risk information
seriousSome risk assessments and support plans did not reflect people's current needs. This could lead to unsafe or inconsistent support.
“Risks to people were not always managed. Risk assessments were incorporated into people's support plans. However, these were not always robust or up to date to reflect people's current needs.” from the report
Recruitment checks
needs fixingThe home completed several recruitment checks, but references were not robust enough to confirm people's suitability.
“Further improvements were required to ensure the obtaining and verification of references to ensure fit and proper person of good character were employed.” from the report
Environment and independence
needs fixingThe environment needed improvement and limited people's chances to take part in cooking, shopping, cleaning and laundry. The manager shared plans for renovations.
“Due to the environment people were limited in their opportunities to undertake daily living tasks such as cooking, shopping, cleaning, and laundry tasks.” from the report
Management checks
needs fixingQuality audits did not identify all problems in care plans, risk assessments and daily records. This reduced confidence that issues would be found and corrected promptly.
“These systems and processes did not always identify where the quality and safety of the service may be compromised, to enable them to respond appropriately.” from the report
Medicine availability
seriousOne person's as-required medicine was not in stock because of a delivery problem. The manager said action would be taken.
“One person's 'as required' (PRN) medicine was not in stock. Meaning this was not available, should this person require it.” from the report
- 01How have you updated each person's risk assessment and support plan to reflect their current needs?
- 02How do you check that all incidents recorded in daily notes are also logged, reviewed and acted on?
- 03What has been done to improve cleanliness, maintenance and access to the second kitchen and laundry?
- 04How will people be supported to take part in cooking, shopping, cleaning and laundry?
- 05What changes have been made to recruitment reference checks and to prevent prescribed medicines being out of stock?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key questions were not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 April 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 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind and safe care, but the home Requires Improvement because care records were not always updated.
Inspectors visited without notice on 8, 10 and 16 October 2018. They spoke with people living in the home, a relative, staff and a health professional. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff files, training and other records.
The home was rated Good overall, and Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines, suitable training, kind care and effective management. People were supported with their health, independence, choices, activities and relationships.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. Care records were not always reviewed and updated when people's needs changed. Inspectors also identified some less detailed information about dietary needs, end of life wishes and emergency evacuation arrangements. The manager had started addressing these issues during the inspection.
This was the first inspection of the location under the new provider. The report says all fundamental standards were being met.
Kind, respectful care
Staff built strong relationships with people and treated them with dignity. They knew people's routines, preferences and changing moods.
“People told us staff were kind and caring. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and knew people well.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, with staffing adjusted when needs changed. Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely.
“Medicines were stored, managed and administered safely.” from the report
Personalised activities and choices
People were supported to choose food, activities and daily routines. Staff helped people stay independent and take part in community activities.
“Activities were personalised depending on peoples' individual preferences.” from the report
Good leadership and teamwork
Inspectors found committed staff, positive morale and regular checks on the quality of care. The management team acted on feedback and identified areas for improvement.
“The provider and registered manager had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided and were committed to ensuring the quality of care continuously improved.” from the report
Care records not always current
needs fixingOne person's records had not been reviewed since February 2018 even though their needs had changed. Staff knew the person well, but the written information did not always match the care being given.
“The reviewing and updating of care records was not always consistent.” from the report
Emergency information needed updating
needs fixingTwo people's emergency evacuation plans did not fully explain how staff should support them if they became anxious. The fire risk assessment was also due to be updated.
“We identified two peoples' PEEPs would have benefitted from being updated to reflect what actions staff should take if the people became anxious in the event of an emergency.” from the report
Some care information lacked detail
minorStaff understood people's dietary needs, but the written care records did not contain enough detail about dietary needs and preferences.
“The information within care records about people's dietary needs and preferences could have been more detailed.” from the report
End of life wishes
minorThe manager recognised that people's end of life wishes were not recorded in enough detail. More comprehensive plans were being developed.
“The registered manager recognised care planning around end of life care could be improved.” from the report
Weight monitoring
minorPeople were generally weighed monthly, but the manager did not have a good system for reviewing the results together and spotting trends. Minor anomalies were found in two people's records.
“This meant the registered manager did not have an effective way of monitoring people's weights and ensuring trends and patterns were promptly identified and acted upon.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure care records are reviewed whenever someone's needs change?
- 02Have the two personal emergency evacuation plans and the fire risk assessment been updated?
- 03How are each person's dietary needs and food preferences recorded and shared with staff?
- 04Have comprehensive end of life care plans been completed, and how are people's wishes involved?
- 05What system is now used to monitor people's weights and identify changes quickly?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole service, covering all five key questions and the care provided as well as the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 November 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 View Road
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- April 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 September 2017.
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
99 live-in carers within about an hour of Bradford
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. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.