CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Parklands Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection controls, but the infection prevention policy was not fully up to date.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 7 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic. They also asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors found that visitors were checked, including their COVID-19 test results. The home was clean, had enough protective equipment, and displayed clear advice about using it and washing hands. Staff had infection control training.
The home had an infection prevention lead, and staff said they were supported during the pandemic. People were able to receive visits in line with government guidance. However, the infection prevention policy had not been updated to reflect current COVID-19 guidance.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not result in a Good, Requires Improvement or Inadequate rating.
Clean environment
The home was clean, with extra cleaning of frequently touched surfaces such as handrails.
“The environment was clean and additional cleaning was taking place for surfaces that were touched frequently, such as handrails.” from the report
Protective equipment and training
There was enough protective equipment, clear guidance about using it and washing hands, and staff had received infection control training.
“There was enough PPE. There was clear signage on the correct use of PPE and handwashing techniques, and staff had received training in infection prevention and control.” from the report
Support for visits
People could receive visits from relatives and friends, and the home said these followed current guidance.
“People received visits from friends and family members, and where this happened it followed the current guidance.” from the report
Staff support
Staff gave positive feedback about the support they received during the pandemic, and managers had worked with other agencies to support staff well-being.
“Staff gave positive feedback about the support they were offered during the pandemic.” from the report
Policy not fully updated
needs fixingThe home's infection prevention policy had not been updated to reflect current COVID-19 guidance. Inspectors signposted the provider to resources to improve its approach.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
- 01Has the infection prevention and control policy now been updated to reflect current COVID-19 guidance?
- 02How are staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 being managed, and have they affected people's care?
- 03What are the home's current arrangements for visits from relatives and friends?
- 04How does the home check testing and vaccination requirements for staff and visiting professionals?
- 05How often are frequently touched surfaces cleaned, and how is this checked?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide a full service rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 February 2022 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, August 2018
Parklands Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some records and staff training needing attention.
The inspection was unannounced on 10 July 2018, with a further visit on 13 July to complete the work. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments and clean surroundings. People were treated with kindness and respect, and staff supported their choices, health needs, food preferences and activities.
There were some areas to improve. Some staff training needed updating, some probation records were not signed off, and one short-term resident's care plan was not current when first checked. Information about safeguarding and DoLS was stored in several places and was not easy to track. The manager took immediate or planned action during and after the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported privacy, dignity and independence. Inspectors saw calm, positive interactions.
“We observed lots of caring interactions between staff and people who used the service.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans usually included people's histories, likes, dislikes and personal wishes. Activities included outings, music, crafts and community links.
“People histories, backgrounds, interests, likes and dislikes were captured in a 'This is me, my life before you knew me' document” from the report
Good management checks
The home used audits, meetings, feedback and incident monitoring to check quality and plan improvements.
“We found the provider had a quality assurance system in place.” from the report
Training updates
needs fixingSome staff training, including privacy and dignity training, was due to be renewed. The manager had planned updates, but families may wish to check that these were completed.
“We saw that some training, such as in privacy and dignity, was due to be updated.” from the report
Probation records
needs fixingSome new staff had completed their probation, but the manager had not always signed the records to confirm this.
“We found that probationary periods were not always signed off by the registered manager to show staff were competent to carry out their roles.” from the report
One care plan was out of date
needs fixingThe plan for one person receiving short-term care did not reflect their current needs at first. It was updated during the inspection.
“However, we found the care plan for one person receiving short-term care was not reflective of the person's current needs.” from the report
Records were not easy to track
needs fixingSafeguarding and DoLS information was held in several places. This made it harder for staff to find and track information.
“However, we found that information about safeguarding and DoLS was kept in several different places and was not always clearly tracked” from the report
Worn furnishings
minorMost furnishings were in good repair, but inspectors saw some worn items, including carpets. Refurbishment work was planned and some flooring had already been replaced.
“We also observed some worn furnishings, such as carpets.” from the report
End of life training
needs fixingStaff had not received formal end of life care training at the time of the inspection. The manager said training was being arranged.
“although staff had not received any formal training on end of life care, feedback on this aspect of the service was very positive.” from the report
- 01Have all the staff training renewals, including privacy and dignity, medicines and dementia training, now been completed?
- 02How do you confirm and record that new staff have successfully completed their probation?
- 03How do you make sure care plans for people receiving short-term care are updated promptly when their needs or behaviour change?
- 04How are safeguarding referrals, DoLS applications and notifications to CQC now recorded and tracked?
- 05What refurbishment has been completed since the inspection, and what worn furnishings still need replacing?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home; it was the home's first rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 August 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 Parklands Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.