CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Park View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe recruitment, well-managed risks, safe medicines processes and good infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and supported people with their health, nutrition, choices and emotional needs. Inspectors found the home was working in line with the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during the focused inspection, so no new rating was given.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during the focused inspection, so no new rating was given.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Governance checks were in place, but the home needed a more consistently open culture. Some staff lacked confidence in raising concerns, confidentiality was questioned, and some medicines records lacked a clear rationale.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not always well-led and rated this area Requires Improvement.
Inspectors carried out an unannounced focused inspection on 14 November 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
Safe and effective care were rated Good. Inspectors found enough suitably recruited staff, well-managed risks, safe medicines systems and good infection control. Staff had the training and skills to support people, including people living with dementia or experiencing distress.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Some staff lacked confidence in raising serious concerns, and inspectors found problems with confidentiality and following the provider's procedures. Some records also did not clearly explain why certain as-required medicines were given. The overall rating remained Good, but this inspection only assessed Safe, Effective and Well-led.
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were monitored against people's needs and staff had been recruited safely.
“The provider ensured there were enough suitable staff on duty and monitored staffing levels based on people's dependency needs.” from the report
Skilled support
Staff had training and showed inspectors how they used it to support people experiencing anxiety or distress.
“Throughout our inspection staff explained and demonstrated how they implemented training in their everyday practice when people were experiencing anxiety or distress.” from the report
Good food and mealtimes
People had food choices and inspectors saw a relaxed mealtime where people were encouraged to eat, drink and enjoy company.
“At lunch time there was a relaxed and pleasant atmosphere and people enjoyed the mealtime experience.” from the report
Safe medicines and infection control
Medicines were managed by trained staff and inspectors found the home clean, tidy and using suitable infection control practices.
“People were protected from the risk of infection because staff followed good infection control processes.” from the report
Confidence in raising concerns
needs fixingSome staff said serious issues had not always been handled according to the provider's procedures. This had reduced their confidence in management.
“Some staff expressed a lack of confidence in raising concerns to the provider.” from the report
Confidentiality
needs fixingInspectors found that some staff described a lack of confidentiality. They said this could affect working relationships and investigations into safeguarding concerns or complaints.
“Some staff also described a lack of confidentiality within the staff team which had the potential to impact on working relationships and the integrity of investigations into safeguarding concerns or complaints.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingSome records did not clearly explain why certain as-required medicines were given to help people during distress.
“Records did not always evidence a clear rationale for the administration of some 'as required' medicines used to help people in times of distress.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to make staff feel confident about raising serious concerns?
- 02How do you protect confidentiality when investigating safeguarding concerns or complaints?
- 03How are records for as-required medicines checked to make sure the reason for giving them is clear?
- 04What progress has been made on the service improvement plan since the inspection?
- 05What are the current ratings for Caring and Responsive, which were not assessed in this inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected, and the overall rating used earlier ratings for the questions not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 January 2024 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, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with clearer guidance still needed for some 'when required' medicines.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 08 November 2018. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They observed care, reviewed care plans and records, and checked training, complaints and quality checks.
The home was judged Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments, clean surroundings and safe medicines systems. People received support with food, health needs, communication, activities and end-of-life care.
The home had improved since the December 2017 inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement overall. Inspectors found stronger management, better checks on accidents and risks, and clearer guidance for some care tasks. One shortfall remained because guidance was not always recorded for medicines given only when needed.
Improved safety
The home had addressed safety problems found at the previous inspection. Risks were assessed, accidents were reviewed for patterns, and action was taken to reduce future risks.
“At this inspection we found the provider had made the required improvements and the safety of the service is now rated as 'good'.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff used people's names, listened to them and offered reassurance when they became anxious. Care plans included personal preferences and ways to comfort each person.
“Staff took care to ensure they had positive interactions with people as they carried out their roles.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs, life histories, interests and anxieties. Staff used this information to support communication, activities and emotional wellbeing.
“People had care plans that were personalised to their needs.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to continue interests, socialise and maintain mobility. Activities included cooking, walking, music, puzzles and trips outside the home.
“People were encouraged and supported to maintain their mobility by using a frame to walk with.” from the report
Stronger management checks
The management team had introduced regular audits and a development plan. Inspectors found that identified issues were acted on.
“Improvements had been made to the quality assurance system to ensure people received a safe, effective and responsive standard of care.” from the report
Some medicines guidance was missing
needs fixingThere were not always written instructions explaining when people should receive medicines prescribed only when needed. Management said this guidance should be in place and would arrange it.
“However, there were not always guidelines in place for when people should receive their 'when required' medicines.” from the report
- 01What written guidance is now in place for each person's medicines given only when needed?
- 02How do you check that staff follow this guidance and record these medicines correctly?
- 03How often are agency staff used now, and how do you maintain continuity when they are needed?
- 04How are falls, accidents and incidents reviewed, and what changes have been made as a result?
- 05How will you make sure activities and daily support match my relative's interests, communication needs and preferences?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with additional detailed work on oral health care. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 December 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
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 December 2012.
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 Warwickshire
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 £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.