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 there were enough staff who knew people's needs. Inspectors noted that some risk assessments and accident records lacked detail, while medicines records and cleaning also needed some improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible and approachable management, good feedback arrangements, regular audits and positive partnership working. The rating changed from Outstanding at the last inspection to Good.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Park View is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and strong leadership, but some records and cleaning needed attention.
Inspectors made an unannounced focused visit on 8 November 2023. They spoke with 9 people, 14 relatives, 7 staff members and 5 healthcare professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People said they felt safe and staff responded promptly. Staff knew people well, there were enough staff, medicines were generally managed safely, and safeguarding and infection control arrangements were in place.
Inspectors found some weaknesses. Risk assessments were not always detailed, some accident reports lacked information, some handwritten medicines entries were unclear, and some areas needed more thorough cleaning. The manager acted during the inspection to address these points.
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only. The other question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection, so the overall Good rating was calculated using both the new findings and the older ratings.
Staff know people well
Staff understood people's needs and how they liked to be supported. Relatives said staff noticed changes in people's wellbeing.
“Despite a lack of detail in some documentation, staff knew people well and were able to tell us about any risks to their safety” from the report
Enough responsive staff
Inspectors found enough staff available, with staff visible in communal areas and responding promptly to requests.
“During the inspection we found staff were visible throughout the communal areas of the service, responding promptly to people's requests.” from the report
People feel safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Safeguarding training and reporting arrangements were in place.
“People told us they felt safe and relatives said they had no concerns about people's safety.” from the report
Open leadership
People, relatives and staff described managers as approachable and accessible. The home used surveys, meetings and other feedback methods to involve people.
“The registered manager had an open door policy and encouraged informal conversations and interactions alongside more formal feedback” from the report
Partnership working
Healthcare professionals gave positive feedback about communication and teamwork. The home worked with health and social care professionals to meet changing needs.
“The provider worked in partnership with a number of different health and social care professionals.” from the report
Risk records lacked detail
needs fixingSome risk assessments and care guidance were not detailed or personalised enough. The provider said a full review and update was under way.
“Risks to people's safety were assessed and recorded; however, guidance was not always sufficiently detailed.” from the report
Accident records were incomplete
needs fixingSome accident reports did not clearly show what action had been taken. The manager arranged extra support and training during the inspection.
“During the inspection we identified some accident reports which lacked detail and this meant it was not always clear whether the appropriate actions had been taken.” from the report
Some medicines entries unclear
minorSome handwritten medicines records were difficult to read. The home carried out regular checks, and stock balances were accurate when inspectors checked them.
“Some of the handwritten entries on the MARs were not clear.” from the report
More thorough cleaning needed
minorThe home was generally clean and well maintained, but inspectors found some stained areas requiring more extensive cleaning. Extra cleaning and checks were arranged.
“During the inspection we identified some areas where more extensive cleaning was required to ensure facilities were free from stains.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to make risk assessments more detailed and personalised?
- 02How do you now make sure accident reports clearly record the action taken?
- 03How are handwritten medicines entries checked for clarity, and are the PRN protocols now dated?
- 04What extra cleaning checks were introduced after the inspection?
- 05What evidence can you show that the issues identified during the inspection have stayed improved?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 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, March 2018
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding leadership; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but communication support needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced on 6 February 2018. One inspector and two experts by experience visited the home. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a health professional. They also observed care and checked care plans, staff records, medicines, complaints, audits and safety records.
Inspectors found that people were safe and received effective, caring and responsive support. Medicines were managed safely, staff understood people's risks and needs, and people were treated with dignity. Care plans were individualised and activities were available in the home and local community.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Outstanding. Inspectors said the home had remained Good since the previous inspection, although they recommended better attention to accessible communication.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and given safely. Records and regular checks showed that people received their medicines as prescribed.
“Medicines were stored and administered safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them in a calm, personal way. Inspectors saw positive interactions and people appeared comfortable with staff.
“We saw people looked relaxed, comfortable and at ease in the company of staff.” from the report
Individual support
Care plans included people's needs, choices, backgrounds, hobbies and preferences. Activities were available both at the home and in the local community.
“Each person had detailed care plans in place that identified how their assessed needs were to be met.” from the report
Strong leadership
The registered manager was visible and approachable. Staff felt valued, involved and able to suggest improvements.
“There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor care and plan on-going improvements.” from the report
Good food and choice
People could choose from freshly prepared food, and staff knew their dietary needs, likes and dislikes.
“People told us, and we could see for ourselves, that they could choose what to eat from a choice of freshly prepared food.” from the report
Accessible communication
needs fixingThe home was not actively identifying the communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss. Inspectors recommended training and changes to practice.
“The service was not actively identifying the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss, and no one at the service had been trained in the accessible communication standards.” from the report
Language during personal care
needs fixingThree people said some staff spoke in their native language while giving personal care. They said this sometimes made them feel uncomfortable.
“However, some staff did not have English as their first language and three people told us that they would speak in their native language when they were giving personal care.” from the report
- 01How do you now identify and record the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss?
- 02What training have staff completed on accessible communication standards?
- 03How do you make sure people understand what is being said during personal care?
- 04How are people's communication preferences recorded in their care plans and shared with all staff?
- 05How do you check that the improvements recommended in this report have been put into practice?
This was an unannounced inspection of the home, including both the premises and the care provided, and all five CQC questions were rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 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
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 December 2010.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.