CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Parkside Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safeguarding systems, up-to-date risk assessments, suitable staffing and safe recruitment checks. Medicines and infection prevention arrangements were also found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive leadership, open communication and quality checks. Complaints, incidents and learning from things that went wrong were recorded and acted on.
What inspectors found, October 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found people were safe, supported to be independent and living in a positive home.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 August 2023. Inspectors spoke with seven people, three staff and a probation professional. They reviewed two care plans, recruitment records, risk assessments, audits and other records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found safeguarding systems, risk assessments, staffing, recruitment and medicines arrangements were in place. Infection prevention measures were also considered effective.
People were supported to make choices and take positive risks, including going into the community and, in some cases, managing their own medicines with staff support. Inspectors found an open culture, accessible management and evidence that complaints and incidents were acted on.
Only Safe and Well-led were inspected at this visit. The other ratings were not reassessed and the overall Good rating remained based partly on the previous inspection.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to raise concerns.
“People told us that they felt safe living at the home.” from the report
Independence was encouraged
Risk assessments supported people to make choices and take positive risks. This included accessing the community and, for some people, managing their own medicines with support.
“Risk assessments that were put in place encouraged people to live independent lives.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's assessed needs, appropriate recruitment checks and regular medicines audits and competency checks.
“There were enough staff available to support people who used the service.” from the report
Positive culture
People and staff spoke positively about the home. The manager was described as accessible, and staff understood how to raise concerns.
“The registered manager promoted a positive culture within the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and meet my relative's particular mental health needs?
- 02How do you support people to take positive risks while keeping them safe?
- 03Could my relative manage some medicines independently, and what checks and support would be provided?
- 04How are complaints, incidents and safeguarding concerns recorded, investigated and followed up?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not reassessed at this inspection?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key-question ratings were not reassessed and the previous ratings were used in the overall Good rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 October 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, January 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but care records did not always clearly show people's goals.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection. The report gives the inspection visit date as 28 November 2017, although another section says 24 November 2017. Inspectors spoke with three people living at the home, four staff members and a visiting professional. They also checked care records, recruitment files, medicines, training, complaints and quality checks.
The overall rating was Good. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines systems, appropriate training and support for people's health needs.
People were treated with dignity and encouraged to make choices and stay independent. Care records were personal, but monthly reviews did not always clearly show the outcomes people were working towards. The home was rated Good at the previous inspection in November 2015, and this rating remained unchanged.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, staff were safely recruited and medicines were managed by trained staff.
“People continued to receive safe care and the risks to people's safety were continually assessed and reviewed.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received induction, supervision and training relevant to the mental health conditions and other needs of people at the home.
“Staff received a comprehensive training programme designed to equip them with the skills needed to support people effectively.” from the report
Respect and independence
People were treated with dignity and encouraged to make choices, maintain relationships and do more for themselves.
“The service supported people to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Personalised support
Care information included people's histories, interests, likes and dislikes, helping staff provide support that reflected individual preferences.
“People were supported by knowledgeable staff who had a good understanding of people's likes and dislikes, their life history and their personal preferences.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, meetings and checks to monitor safety and quality, and followed up identified actions.
“There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the home.” from the report
Care goals were not always clear
needs fixingMonthly care reviews did not always clearly record the outcomes people were working towards. The manager agreed the reviews needed to be more meaningful and said staff would receive further guidance.
“We discussed with the registered manager that the monthly reviews carried out by keyworkers did not always clearly identify the outcomes that people were working towards.” from the report
Paperwork could affect responsiveness
minorOne person felt staff had too much paperwork and were not always as responsive as they could be. Other people said staff were available around the clock.
“One person told us they thought staff had 'Too much paperwork' which meant they weren't always as responsive as they could be.” from the report
- 01How do you now record each person's goals and the outcomes they are working towards?
- 02What changes have been made to help staff respond promptly when paperwork is demanding?
- 03How are staff trained and assessed to support the specific mental health needs of my relative?
- 04How will my relative be supported to build independence and take part in activities outside the home?
- 05How are people and families involved in reviewing care plans and improving the home?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with the report giving inconsistent visit dates of 24 and 28 November 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 January 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 Parkside Lodge
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 January 2011.
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
48 live-in carers within about an hour of Gateshead
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 £950 to £1,240 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.