CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Parkside
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with some further work needed on end-of-life wishes and activities.
This was an unannounced planned inspection. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also reviewed care, medicines, incident, complaint, audit and staff records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, supported with their medicines, and cared for by staff who had suitable training and skills.
People and relatives described kind, respectful and person-centred care. The home supported people's choices, independence, relationships and access to health services. Complaints and incidents were reviewed so that improvements could be made.
Inspectors identified some further work. The home needed to add people's end-of-life wishes to care plans where possible, and some people wanted more fresh fruit, vegetables and activities.
People felt safe
Staff knew how to recognise and report possible abuse. Individual risks were assessed, reviewed and managed.
“People were protected from harm by staff who were confident in recognising and reporting concerns.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw friendly and respectful interactions and found that people's privacy and dignity were promoted.
“Throughout our time at the service, we observed friendly and respectful interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Good support for health
People could access GPs and other health professionals when needed. Staff worked with other professionals to provide effective care.
“It was evident in the records we looked at and from people's comments that staff worked closely with other professionals to make sure people received effective care.” from the report
Strong quality checks
The provider regularly checked the service and used feedback, incidents and complaints to make improvements.
“The provider had a robust governance system which enabled them to regularly assess all aspects of the service.” from the report
End-of-life wishes
needs fixingInspectors said further work was needed to include people's end-of-life care wishes in their care plans where possible.
“Further work was necessary to ensure where possible, people's end of life care wishes were included in their care plans.” from the report
Food choices
minorMost people enjoyed the food, but some wanted more vegetables and fruit on the menu. The manager said this would be discussed with people.
“Most people told us they enjoyed the food, but others said they would like more vegetables and fruits on the menu.” from the report
More activities
minorSome people wanted more to do during the day. The home had advertised for an activity coordinator.
“Some people said they would like to do more to occupy their time, while others enjoyed reading, watching tv or just relaxing.” from the report
- 01How have you recorded each person's end-of-life care wishes since this inspection?
- 02What activities are now available for people who want more to do during the day?
- 03Have you changed the menus to provide more fresh fruit and vegetables?
- 04How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient at weekends and during busy mornings?
- 05How are relatives involved when a person's care needs or end-of-life wishes change?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, and all five Good ratings remained the same as at the previous inspection published on 10 December 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 July 2019 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, December 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 23 November 2016. One inspector and an expert by experience visited the home. They spoke with 13 people, three relatives and members of staff. They also observed care, reviewed five care plans, four staff files and the home's quality records.
People told inspectors they felt safe and were treated kindly. Staff understood people's needs, obtained consent and supported people with food, healthcare, medicines and daily activities. Care plans were personalised and updated when people's needs changed.
The home had enough staff, safe recruitment checks and systems for safeguarding, risks and medicines. People and relatives could give feedback or complain. The registered manager and provider used audits and meetings to monitor care and make improvements.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspection found the required standards were being met in all five areas at the time of the visit.
People felt safe
People said they felt secure. Staff understood safeguarding and risk assessments, and inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs.
“People had no concerns about their safety within the service and told us they felt secure.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed speaking kindly, offering reassurance and protecting people's privacy and dignity.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion by the staff, and spending time with them on activities of their choice.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences and routines. People and relatives were involved in decisions about care.
“Care plans were specific to people as individuals and provided staff with information on how to manage people's individual needs.” from the report
Good leadership and monitoring
The registered manager was visible and approachable. The home used audits, meetings and feedback to identify improvements.
“People and staff told us that there was positive leadership in place, both from the registered manager and provider, which encouraged an open and transparent culture for staff to work in and people to live in.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you decide whether there are enough staff when a resident's needs change?
- 02How would you support my relative's particular dietary, health and medication needs?
- 03How are care plans reviewed with residents and their relatives when needs or preferences change?
- 04What activities and one-to-one support would be available for someone who does not want to join group activities?
- 05How would I raise a concern, and how would you keep me informed about the response?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC questions, with observations, discussions, care plan checks, staff file checks and reviews of quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 December 2016 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 Parkside
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvement
- January 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 April 2014.
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
88 live-in carers within about an hour of Bedford
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.