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 were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place, including safe admissions, PPE, testing, visitor arrangements and outbreak planning.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found robust COVID-19 infection control plans and safe arrangements for visitors.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 3 November 2020. Inspectors looked only at infection prevention and control because the home was intended to accept people discharged from hospital with COVID-19.
Inspectors found plans for caring for people with COVID-19, a designated area, suitable PPE arrangements and updated infection control procedures. They were assured that the home was managing visitors, testing, social distancing, hygiene and possible outbreaks.
The home was inspected but not rated. This inspection did not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other key areas of care.
COVID-19 admission planning
The provider had plans for caring safely for people admitted with COVID-19, including a designated area of the home.
“The provider and the registered manager had put robust plans in place which ensured people admitted to the service with COVID19 were able to be cared for.” from the report
Infection control measures
Inspectors found infection control policies, PPE changing areas and reminders about the PPE staff should use.
“Infection control policies and procedures were in place. Areas of the home were set aside for staff to change PPE.” from the report
Visitor safety
Arrangements were in place for end-of-life visitors, including hand hygiene, temperature checks, hand sanitiser and PPE.
“Hand sanitiser and PPE were also available to visitors.” from the report
Overall infection control assurance
Inspectors said the home met good infection prevention and control guidelines for a designated care setting.
“We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines as a designated care setting.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are the designated rooms used now, and how do you separate people who may have an infection from other residents?
- 02How do staff receive and follow the current PPE and infection control procedures?
- 03What testing arrangements are currently in place for residents and staff?
- 04How can relatives visit, including when someone is receiving end-of-life care?
- 05What are the home's current ratings or inspection findings for caring, responsiveness and leadership, which this inspection did not assess?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only, so no overall rating or ratings for the other key questions were given. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 November 2020 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 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with recruitment for a new registered manager still under way.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 February 2018. Inspectors reviewed records, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional, and observed care. They also checked staff files, training, medicines, audits and complaints.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable care plans, good support with food and healthcare, and respectful care.
The previous inspection in November 2015 also rated the home Good. The registered manager had left in November 2017, and an acting manager was in place while recruitment for a replacement continued. The report found no serious risks or concerns that changed the overall rating.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and saw call bells answered promptly. Recruitment checks were also completed for new staff.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to keep people safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them in a calm, gentle and dignified way. They respected privacy and encouraged people to remain independent.
“Our observations confirmed staff treated people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, interests, social history and ways of communicating. People and relatives were involved in care planning and reviews.
“People's care records contained a 'life story' document which had been developed with the person or their relative” from the report
Activities and choice
The home offered activities seven days a week, while respecting that people could choose not to take part. Inspectors saw people enjoying music and singing.
“The service employed two activities co-ordinators.” from the report
Quality checks
The provider carried out regular audits covering areas such as care records, infection control, health and safety, catering and medicines. Surveys and meetings were also used to hear people's views.
“The provider carried out regular audits to ensure people who used the service received a high standard of care.” from the report
Registered manager vacancy
needs fixingThe registered manager had left several months before the inspection. An operational support manager was acting as manager while recruitment for a replacement was in progress.
“The registered manager had left the service in November 2017.” from the report
Some training gaps
minorMost mandatory training was up to date, but inspectors identified some gaps. The report says training had been planned to address them.
“The majority of staff mandatory training was up to date and where gaps were identified, training was planned.” from the report
- 01Who is currently managing the home, and when do you expect a new registered manager to be appointed?
- 02Which mandatory training gaps were identified, and have all staff now completed the planned training?
- 03How will you make sure staffing levels continue to match residents' changing needs?
- 04How are residents and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and life story information?
- 05Which activities would be suitable for my relative's interests, abilities and preferences?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC questions; the report says the previous overall Good rating from 2015 was unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 April 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 Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 July 2013.
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.