CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Parker Meadows
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, risk management, infection control and recruitment were found to be safe, but some medicines records and guidance needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care was delivered by trained staff. Food, hydration, healthcare support and the environment met people's needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people's choices, independence, privacy and individual preferences.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people were supported to take part in activities and maintain their interests. End-of-life care plans did not yet record all people's wishes and preferences.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an inclusive culture and managers sought feedback from people, relatives and staff. Audits, meetings and improvement plans were used to monitor care and address shortfalls.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some medicines and end-of-life records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff. They observed care and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and the home's management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives described the home as safe and comfortable. Inspectors found kind staff, suitable training, good healthcare support, nutritious food and activities based on people's interests.
Inspectors found some areas to improve. Medicines records and guidance were not always clear, although the issues were fixed promptly. Assessments did not initially cover sexual orientation, and end-of-life care plans did not yet record all people's wishes and preferences.
Safe staffing and risk management
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Staff understood people's risks, and equipment and the building were maintained.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind, patient and caring. Inspectors observed staff supporting people with dignity and respect.
“People were cared for by kind and compassionate staff.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home supported people to follow their interests, maintain relationships and take part in meaningful activities.
“We noted throughout the inspection people were engaged in meaningful activity and were actively participating.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People's dietary needs were met, and staff responded to changes in weight or nutrition. People received support with healthcare appointments and specialist advice.
“Feedback we received consistently confirmed people's food needs and choices were met.” from the report
Open management
Managers were described as approachable and responsive. The home used meetings, feedback and audits to identify and address issues.
“There was a system for monitoring the quality of the service.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingSome medicines records needed updating so instructions were clear and personalised. The manager acted promptly and also secured free-standing oxygen cylinders.
“The management of people's medicines required some improvements and issues found on inspection were promptly rectified.” from the report
Incomplete equality information
minorNeeds assessments covered protected characteristics except sexual orientation. This was added after the inspection, with a prompt for staff to explore these needs.
“The assessment included asking people about their protected characteristics under the Equality Act except for their sexual orientation.” from the report
End-of-life care plans
needs fixingRecords included treatment decisions, but did not yet include people's wishes and preferences for end-of-life care, including spiritual, cultural and equality needs. The home said it was developing its approach.
“However, people's care plans did not include their wishes and preferences for their end of life care including in relation to their protected equality characteristics, spiritual and cultural needs.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines records and guidance since the inspection?
- 02How are free-standing oxygen cylinders now secured and checked?
- 03How do you record a person's end-of-life wishes, including spiritual and cultural preferences?
- 04How do you make sure assessments cover all relevant equality and communication needs?
- 05How are relatives' concerns and feedback used to improve care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC areas, including the care provided and the premises; it was the first inspection since the service registered under the new provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 January 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.
Every inspection of Parker Meadows
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 August 2018.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.