CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Parklands Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm. Risk assessments, staffing, recruitment, medicines and infection control were judged safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive culture, clear management arrangements, staff support and systems for checking and improving the service.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good; Parklands Nursing Home had improved from Requires Improvement, with safe care and stronger management systems.
Inspectors visited without notice on 24 May 2023. They spoke with 10 people, four relatives, 10 staff members and one healthcare professional. They also reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors rated Safe and Well-led as Good. They found enough staff, appropriate recruitment checks, safe medicines systems, infection prevention measures and care plans that described people's risks and needs.
The inspection found clear improvements since January 2021, when the home was rated Requires Improvement and breached regulations about safe care and treatment and good governance. The home was no longer in breach of those regulations at this inspection.
Clear risk planning
Risk assessments and care plans covered important risks, including falls, pressure sores, malnutrition, catheter care and moving people safely.
“Risk assessments and care plans provided such guidance, as how staff should support people, who were at risk of falls, pressure sores, malnutrition, catheter care, and moving and handling safely.” from the report
Safe medicines systems
Inspectors found medicines were given safely, records were in good order and storage temperatures were checked. Problems found at the previous inspection had been addressed.
“Medicine records were in good order and regular audits were completed to identify and address any issues.” from the report
Kind and attentive staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff, describing them as kind, caring and attentive.
“The staff are all kind and attentive.” from the report
Improved management
The home had a clear management structure, quality checks and ways to gather views from people, relatives and staff.
“The registered manager had quality monitoring systems in place to maintain a good oversight of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What further medicine refresher training is being arranged, and when will all relevant staff complete it?
- 02How do you check that people's risk assessments and care plans remain accurate as their needs change?
- 03How do your audits identify and correct any problems with medicines, care records or safety?
- 04How do you make sure any DoLS applications, renewals and conditions remain up to date?
- 05What arrangements are in place to maintain the improvements made since the January 2021 inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the report does not give current ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 June 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, February 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found enough staff and kind care, but risks, infection control, medicines and oversight were not consistently managed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 January 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, staff and relatives, observed care, and checked care records, medicines records and management records. They also looked at infection control arrangements.
The home had enough staff and people said they felt safe. Relatives spoke positively about the care. However, inspectors found problems with infection control, medicines, risk assessments, fire safety actions and the way the home checked its own quality.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The provider had to send an action plan, and CQC said it would monitor progress and return to inspect again.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels and deployment were suitable for people's needs. Call alarms were answered promptly.
“The deployment of staff was appropriate and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and relatives said they had no safety concerns about their family members.
“People told us they felt safe and relatives confirmed they had no concerns relating to the safety of their family member.” from the report
Safe recruitment
The home had safe recruitment procedures to check that staff were suitable to work with people.
“Staff had been recruited safely to ensure they were suitable to work with the people they supported.” from the report
Kind interactions
Inspectors observed many positive interactions. Staff showed good knowledge of people's care and support needs.
“Many positive interactions between staff and people using the service were observed during the inspection and staff were able to demonstrate a good knowledge of people's care and support needs.” from the report
Supportive manager
Staff described the registered manager as supportive and approachable.
“Staff told us they felt supported and valued by the registered manager.” from the report
Infection control gaps
seriousStaff were not always washing or sanitising their hands between contacts with people. Some newer staff had not completed training on putting on and removing protective equipment.
“where staff had direct contact [touching] with people using the service, staff were not washing or sanitising their hands between interactions.” from the report
Medicines were not always managed safely
seriousMorning medicines were sometimes given late and records did not always show the correct time. Storage temperatures and staff competency checks also needed attention.
“The morning medication round did not complete until 11.00am. This placed people at risk of receiving their medication too close together or not receiving their medication in line with the prescriber's instructions.” from the report
Incomplete risk assessments
seriousSome risks linked to oxygen use and catheter care had not been assessed or recorded. Fire risk assessment actions had also remained outstanding for a long time.
“Not all risks to people's safety and wellbeing were being recorded, monitored and managed effectively.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's audits did not identify or correct several problems found by inspectors. This meant the provider could not reliably show that risks were being managed.
“The quality assurance and governance arrangements in place were not reliable or effective in identifying risk and shortfalls within the service.” from the report
Processes were not always followed
needs fixingThe home did not always follow formal processes for safeguarding concerns, required notifications, or decisions about COVID-19 testing for people who could not consent.
“The provider and registered manager did not routinely act in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act [MCA] 2005.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure staff wash or sanitise their hands between contacts with residents?
- 02Have all staff completed infection control and protective equipment training, including putting on and removing protective equipment?
- 03How do you now make sure medicines are given at the prescribed times and that medicine records show the correct time?
- 04Have the risk assessments for oxygen use, catheter care and hospital readmissions been completed and reviewed?
- 05What changes have been made to the quality audits so that problems are identified, acted on and checked?
This inspection focused on Safe and Well-led because of concerns about management and medicines, and the other three key question ratings were not given. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 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 Parklands Nursing Home
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2019Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 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.