CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Parkside Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable staffing, safeguarding knowledge, regular risk reviews and safe medicines management. Call bells were missing from communal bathrooms on the first day but were reinstalled by the second day.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, staff training was kept up to date, and health professionals were involved when needed. Supervision was frequent, but appraisals had been completed inconsistently.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as kind and compassionate. People were supported to keep their dignity, privacy, independence and preferred ways of communicating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences and were reviewed monthly. Activities and support were adapted to people's wishes, and complaints were recorded and responded to appropriately.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular audits, meetings and action plans, and responded to feedback. A new manager was in induction and the CQC registration process had begun.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some improvements needed in staff appraisals and mealtime support.
Inspectors visited without warning on 19 and 20 November 2018. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care plans, health records, medicines, recruitment files, complaints and quality checks, and observed lunchtime care.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, regular care plan reviews and support that promoted people's choices, dignity and independence.
The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection. A new manager was being inducted and the registration process with the CQC had started. Inspectors also identified some smaller areas to improve, including completing appraisals and ensuring people receive undivided attention when being helped to eat.
Safe medicines
Inspectors observed medicines being given safely and found that medicines were stored and ordered correctly. Audits showed people received medicines in a timely way and according to their preferences.
“Medicine audits took place frequently, and illustrated that medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Dignity and independence
Staff supported people to do as much as possible for themselves, including eating and personal care. Privacy was maintained during personal care.
“This allowed people to maintain their dignity and independence in this area of their life.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans were written around how people wanted to be supported. People were involved in reviewing their care and could choose when and how support was offered.
“The purpose of this was to emphasise and empower people to lead their care.” from the report
Activities and relationships
Activities were offered in ways that matched people's preferences, including small groups and one-to-one sessions. The home also supported people's links with the wider community.
“People remained engaged with activities, both within and outside the home.” from the report
Responsive management
The home recorded complaints, responded within its stated timescale and used feedback to make changes. It also acted quickly when inspectors raised the missing call bells.
“By day two we saw that call bells had been reinstalled in all communal bathrooms.” from the report
Appraisals not consistent
needs fixingAlthough staff received frequent supervision, appraisals had been completed only when needed rather than on a clear annual schedule. The new manager had created a plan to address this.
“Whilst supervisions were carried out frequently, appraisals were completed ad hoc.” from the report
Mealtime attention
needs fixingDuring lunch, some staff were managing several tasks at once. Inspectors asked the management team to consider staffing or staggered meals so people could receive more individual attention.
“For example, assisting one person with eating, filling another person's glass with a drink and prompting a third person to eat more.” from the report
Communal bathroom call bells
needs fixingCall bells were not in all communal bathrooms on the first inspection day. Management accepted this was an oversight and replaced them by the next day.
“Similarly, on day one of the inspection we found that call bells were not located in all communal bathrooms.” from the report
- 01Has the manager now completed the CQC registration process, and how long have they been managing the home?
- 02How do you make sure all staff receive regular supervision and annual appraisals?
- 03How do you ensure people who need help eating receive enough one-to-one attention?
- 04Are call bells now present and checked in every communal bathroom?
- 05How are care plans and risk assessments reviewed when a person's needs change?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the home's overall rating, with the rating remaining Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 January 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.
Every inspection of Parkside Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Reading
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 £1,010 to £1,270 a week. 86 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
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.