CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Parker House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with medicines, infection control, the environment and quality checks.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 28 and 29 November 2023. Inspectors reviewed information, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was not always safe. Inspectors found problems with risk assessments, repositioning, window restrictors, equipment, cleanliness, medicines and staffing at night. The provider took some immediate action during the inspection, including arranging more night staff and seeking specialist medicines training.
The home was also not always well-led. Audits had failed to identify important problems, and some care plans and risk assessments were inaccurate or incomplete. The overall rating changed from Good at the last inspection in 2017 to Requires Improvement.
Kind staff
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors also saw staff responding kindly to people and their relatives.
“The staff are kind and caring, the nursing staff are consistent, there are not many changes.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to raise concerns. People were also supported within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
“Staff we spoke with knew what to report and who to report safeguarding concerns to.” from the report
Some medicines given on time
People who needed time-specific medicines for Parkinson's or epilepsy received them on time according to their prescriptions.
“People who required time specific medicine for the management of Parkinson's and epilepsy received these on time according to the prescription.” from the report
Open communication
Relatives said they were told quickly when something went wrong. Staff also worked with other professionals.
“The home is very good with communicating, they always let me know if anything happens, it's very quickly resolved.” from the report
Risk management
seriousRepositioning was not always recorded as required, and some falls and bed rail assessments were unclear or conflicting. Environmental hazards included unsafe window restrictors, loose equipment and unfixed furniture.
“Risks were not consistently managed or monitored. This placed people at an increased risk of avoidable harm.” from the report
Medicines
seriousSome prescribed thickeners were stored without labels or opening dates, and records for medicines given when needed were missing. Staff had not completed specialist training for syringe-driver medicines.
“Medicines were not always managed safely.” from the report
Infection control
seriousSome areas, mattresses and moving equipment were dirty. Infection-control audits had not identified these problems.
“People were not always protected from the risk of infection as staff were not consistently following safe infection prevention and control practices.” from the report
Night staffing and recruitment
needs fixingThere were not enough staff overnight to ensure everyone could be supported promptly. Some recruitment files lacked references or full employment histories, so suitability was not always assured.
“We found not enough staff were on duty overnight to ensure all people would be supported in a timely manner.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits did not identify problems with medicines, the environment or care records. This meant management did not reliably use checks to improve safety and care.
“The provider did not effectively monitor the quality and safety of care to ensure improvements were made.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make medicines, including thickeners and syringe-driver medicines, safe and properly recorded?
- 02How are you now checking that people are repositioned as required and that falls and bed rail risks are accurately assessed?
- 03Have all window restrictors, grab rails, furniture and other environmental hazards been repaired or secured?
- 04What changes have been made to night staffing, and how do you check that there are enough suitable staff on every shift?
- 05How will you make sure audits identify problems with care records, medicines, infection control and the building before people are put at risk?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the last inspection in 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 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, April 2021
Parker House Nursing Home: inspected but not rated; inspectors found mostly suitable infection control during a COVID-19 outbreak, but some areas were difficult to clean.
Inspectors made an unannounced, targeted visit on 9 April 2021. They looked only at infection prevention and control because there was a COVID-19 outbreak.
The home was closed to visitors during the outbreak. Inspectors found testing, personal protective equipment, monitoring of people's health, isolation arrangements and updated infection control policies in place.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured about the layout and cleanliness of the building. Some areas were cluttered with moving and handling equipment, which meant they could not always be cleaned effectively.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give a full quality rating for the home.
COVID-19 testing
People and staff took part in regular COVID-19 testing. Staff were asked to complete a lateral flow test before coming to work.
“People and staff were taking part in regular testing for COVID-19.” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors were assured that protective equipment was being used effectively and safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Monitoring health
People were checked daily for temperature and oxygen levels, and changes in their health were reported to the GP.
“People were monitored for the symptoms of COVID-19.” from the report
Updated infection policy
The home had current infection prevention and control policies that reflected government guidance.
“The home had up to date policies and procedures about infection prevention and control which reflected the latest government guidance.” from the report
Clutter affected cleaning
needs fixingSome areas were cluttered with moving and handling equipment. Inspectors said this meant those areas could not always be cleaned effectively.
“Some areas of the home were cluttered with moving and handling equipment, this meant effective cleaning of those areas was not always possible.” from the report
Worn areas
minorSome parts of the home showed wear, which made cleaning more difficult.
“Some areas of the home were showing signs of wear which made cleaning more difficult.” from the report
- 01What has been done to remove cluttered moving and handling equipment from areas that need cleaning?
- 02What repairs or improvements have been made to areas showing signs of wear?
- 03How does the home manage visiting when there is no COVID-19 outbreak?
- 04How are residents who cannot self-isolate supported during an infection outbreak?
- 05How often are people and staff tested during an outbreak?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak, not a full inspection of all five CQC questions, and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 April 2021 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 Parker House Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- January 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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 £1,260 a week. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.