CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Parklands
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, risk assessments, infection controls, premises checks and medicines systems.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and support. Care plans were detailed, people's health needs were followed up, and staff supported people's choices and nutrition.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were calm, kind and respectful. People were involved in decisions, treated with dignity and supported to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and adapted to people's preferences and changing needs. Inspectors found improved activities, communication and support for relationships.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The provider and new management team had made significant improvements, but oversight and leadership systems were not yet fully embedded to ensure consistent care.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but leadership systems still needed to become fully embedded.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 April 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a health professional. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff records and management checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, detailed care plans, safe medicines practice, clean premises and kind staff who knew people well. People and relatives were generally positive about the care and communication.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The provider and new management team had made major changes after the previous Inadequate rating, but the inspection found that leadership and checking systems still needed more time to become consistent.
The previous rating was Inadequate and the home had been in Special Measures since 10 November 2021. The home was no longer Inadequate or in Special Measures, and the previous breaches had been addressed.
Major improvement
A new management team and staff group had addressed the problems found at the previous inspection. The provider was more involved and had invested in the home.
“They and their staff team had worked hard to ensure the breaches found at the previous inspection had been addressed and robust systems embedded into practice.” from the report
Safe staffing
Staffing levels were reviewed against people's needs. Inspectors saw staff available and responding promptly, with a stable team who knew people well.
“There was now a stable staff team who knew people well and were experienced in delivering person centred care.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, choices and preferences. Staff understood how people wanted to be supported and adapted care to individual needs.
“Comprehensive care plans contained information about peoples' lives and medical history, healthcare conditions, their care needs and the outcomes they wished to achieve” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive relationships between people, staff and relatives. Staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and personal routines.
“Staff treated people with dignity and respect and people were supported by staff to maintain their appearance.” from the report
Activities and social life
The home had two activity co-ordinators and offered individual and group activities. Staff had helped people take part in outings and interests that mattered to them.
“There were now two activity co-ordinators with weekends also covered.” from the report
Leadership still settling
needs fixingThe provider had introduced new audits, meetings and checks, but inspectors said these needed more time to become fully consistent. This was particularly important because serious problems had been found at the previous inspection.
“However, systems needed to continue to be embedded to ensure consistent leadership and to mitigate the risk of the issues we found at the last inspection happening again.” from the report
- 01What checks are now used to make sure the improvements in care and staffing remain consistent?
- 02How often does the provider review the manager's work and the home's quality and safety records?
- 03How will you act if audits or staff feedback show that standards are slipping?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in care plan reviews and decisions about daily routines?
- 05What individual activities and outings would be available for my relative, based on their interests and communication needs?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe, following the previous Inadequate rating and Special Measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 June 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, November 2021
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious problems with safety, staffing, dignity and leadership.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 5 and 7 October 2021. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
They found people were not always safe or receiving timely, personalised care. Risks were recorded but staff were not always told what to do. There were delays with toileting and responding to call bells, poor follow-up of bruising and health concerns, and not enough suitably trained staff.
Inspectors also found rushed, task-based care, limited choice about daily routines, and problems protecting people's dignity. Some carpets and furniture were heavily soiled. Medicines were given as prescribed, meals were well received, and staff were often kind when they had time.
All five areas were rated Inadequate: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found widespread and significant shortfalls, and the home was placed in special measures while improvements are checked.
Kind interactions
Inspectors saw that staff could be kind and caring when they were able to spend time with people.
“The interactions with people and staff were kind and caring when they happened.” from the report
Food and mealtimes
Mealtimes were social, and people could choose where to eat. The cook knew people's preferences and spoke with them about food.
“The cook knew what people liked and regularly spoke with people about what foods they enjoyed.” from the report
Medicines administration
People received their medicines as prescribed, and staff had medicines training and competency checks. Inspectors still identified some records and 'when required' medicines that needed improvement.
“People's medicines were administered safely in the way prescribed for them.” from the report
COVID-19 precautions
Inspectors were assured that several COVID-19 infection prevention arrangements were in place, including masks, handwashing, testing and visiting arrangements.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
People could not always get help promptly
seriousSome people could not reach their call bells, and inspectors saw delays in helping people who were stuck or needed support. This created a risk of avoidable harm.
“They could not reach their call-bell, so we rang it, but it took another hour for them to be supported to sit up.” from the report
Not enough staff
seriousStaffing levels did not meet people's needs in a timely way. People waited for continence support, and staff said they did not have enough time for personal care, activities or conversation.
“If we are late with toileting people are wet.” from the report
Care was not personalised
seriousPeople were often expected to follow the home's routine rather than choose when to get up, go to bed or receive care. Staff were not consistently asking for preferences or consent.
“Peoples' needs were not being met in a person-centred way.” from the report
Soiled furniture and carpets
seriousPoor continence management led to repeated accidents and heavily soiled, odorous carpets and furniture. Existing environmental audits had not identified these problems.
“The environment and furniture were not always clean and hygienic and there was a high level of incontinence which was not managed well.” from the report
Audits did not lead to change
seriousThe home had completed audits and recorded concerns, but problems raised by staff were not consistently acted on or monitored.
“There were no robust audit systems in place to identify any areas which required improvement and ensure action was taken to develop practice if needed.” from the report
- 01How many care staff are now on each shift, and how is this number calculated from residents' needs?
- 02What has changed to make sure people can reach call bells and receive help quickly?
- 03How are unexplained bruises, skin problems, falls and other safeguarding concerns now reported, investigated and followed up?
- 04How do you record and respect each person's preferred times for getting up, going to bed, personal care and meals?
- 05What practical training and competency checks have staff completed for moving and handling, dementia care, catheter care and person-centred care?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered service and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the previous service under the previous provider had been rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 November 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
Every inspection of Parklands
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2021InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2019Inspected but not ratedSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 June 2021.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.