CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Parkside Care 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 safe. This included the use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning, social distancing and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control measures were in place during a coronavirus outbreak.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 3 February 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control because the home had recently experienced a coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreaks safely. They also found that the infection control policy was up to date.
The home had suspended visits during the outbreak on advice from local infection control professionals. Plans were in place to restart visits within two weeks, and families were kept in touch by telephone, letters and the home's Facebook page.
Clear visiting information
Instructions about infection prevention were displayed. Families were updated about visiting arrangements and people were supported to keep in touch remotely.
“Clear instructions for visitors about infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures were displayed.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had received training about protective equipment and were expected to use it correctly. Staff also changed into uniforms at work and stayed on site during shifts.
“Staff had received training about personal protective equipment (PPE) and the registered manager ensured this was worn appropriately.” from the report
Cleaning and testing
The home had cleaning schedules, extra cleaning of frequently touched surfaces and regular checks. People living in the home and staff were tested weekly.
“Clear cleaning schedules were in place. Increased cleaning of touch surfaces was taking place and regular checks were undertaken by the registered manager and provider.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What visiting arrangements are in place now, and how would visits be managed during another outbreak?
- 02How are staff trained and checked to make sure protective equipment is used correctly?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 04How often are frequently touched surfaces cleaned and who checks the cleaning records?
- 05How can residents keep in touch with family if in-person visits are restricted?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 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.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Parkside Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but the staffing assessment tool and some care records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with five people, four relatives, 11 staff and two visiting professionals. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People generally said they felt safe, respected and listened to. Inspectors found enough staff on the day, safe medicines practice, suitable training and positive leadership.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published on 31 January 2019. Inspectors still identified that the staffing tool did not properly reflect people's needs and the layout of the home. Some records also needed more detail, although the manager said these issues were addressed after the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff. Inspectors observed staff treating people with patience, kindness, dignity and respect.
“We observed staff interacting with people in a kind and caring way. They were patient and considerate, addressing people by their name and showing respect.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
People received their medicines safely and on time. Records, storage, staff training and checks were all found to support safe practice.
“People received their medicines safely and on time.” from the report
People's choices and activities
People were offered choices about daily life, meals and activities. The home provided activities linked to people's interests, including trips outside the home.
“The activities co-ordinator explained how they developed personalised activities to meet people's needs and interests and to give them choice and control.” from the report
Open and positive leadership
The manager was visible and staff said they felt listened to and valued. The home used meetings, surveys and audits to identify improvements.
“The manager promoted an open, inclusive and person-centred approach.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
Safe and Well-led both improved from Requires Improvement to Good. The report says the manager had worked with the local authority and improvements had been achieved.
“At this inspection this key question has improved to good.” from the report
Staffing assessment tool
needs fixingThere were enough staff on the day, but the tool used to decide staffing levels did not properly consider people's needs, the building layout or staff deployment. The provider was asked to review it.
“The assessment tool did not consider the layout of the care home, the needs of people and the deployment of staff to ensure peoples treatment and care needs were met in a safe and timely manner.” from the report
Some health risk records
needs fixingSome people did not have individual risk assessments for specific health needs, such as diabetes. The manager said these were put in place after the inspection.
“For example, where people were living with diabetes risk assessments were not always in place about how to support people and reduce the risk of avoidable harm.” from the report
Care plan detail
minorSome care plans were less detailed than others, including records for a person staying for a short-term break. The manager said these plans were rewritten after the visit.
“Some people's care plans were more detailed than others.” from the report
Feedback from professionals
minorInspectors recommended that the provider continues to seek and act on feedback from relevant external professionals to help evaluate and improve the service.
“We recommend the provider continues to seek and act on feedback from relevant professionals on the services provided” from the report
- 01How do you now assess the number and skills of staff needed for each shift?
- 02How have you checked that the staffing assessment reflects the home's layout and each person's care needs?
- 03Have all residents' specific health risks, including diabetes where relevant, been added to their care plans and risk assessments?
- 04How do you make sure care plans for people staying for short breaks contain enough detail?
- 05What feedback have you received from external health and social care professionals, and what changes have you made as a result?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the Safe and Well-led ratings improving from Requires Improvement and the other ratings remaining Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 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.
Every inspection of Parkside Care Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 June 2018.
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
At least 99 live-in carers within about an hour of Barnsley
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Ivy was very kind and gentle in all her dealings with my late mother. They got on very well and were able to share a joke and a laugh.”
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.