CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Parkside (St Helens) Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff responded promptly to call bells, medicines were safely managed and infection control practices were in place, although some areas were unclean on the first day.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The report describes staff as positive, committed and caring, but does not give a current rating for Caring.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had systems for monitoring quality, gathering feedback and supporting contact with relatives. Inspectors identified inconsistent communication with outside organisations and one significant incident that had not been reported to CQC.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support, but temporary cleanliness and communication problems needed attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 and 7 December 2020. It began as a targeted check of infection prevention and control during coronavirus outbreaks. It was then extended to look at safety and how the home was led.
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, safe medicines practice and good infection control. Some areas were not clean on the first day because regular staff, including a cleaner, were absent. The home was clean throughout on the second day after regular staff returned.
People said they felt safe and that staff were kind, approachable and listened to them. Inspectors found that regular staff knew people well. However, communication with outside organisations was sometimes inconsistent, and one significant incident had not been reported to CQC.
The overall rating was Good, as were Safe and Well-led. The other three questions were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used for the overall rating. The previous overall rating was also Good, published in January 2019.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff responded promptly to call bells and carried out wellbeing checks.
“There were enough staff available to meet people's needs.” from the report
Infection control
The home had regular testing, provided the required protective equipment and supported people to self-isolate when needed. Staff were seen using protective equipment correctly.
“We observed staff donning, doffing and disposing of PPE in line with best practice.” from the report
Kind and knowledgeable staff
Regular staff knew the people they supported and were described as positive, committed and caring. People said staff listened to them.
“Regular staff were knowledgeable about the people they were supporting and spoke fondly about them.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were administered, stored and recorded by staff with the required knowledge and skills. The provider also had checks to monitor medicines safety.
“Medicines were safely administered, stored and recorded by staff who had the required knowledge and skills.” from the report
Cleanliness on the first day
needs fixingSome parts of the home, including areas used for protective equipment, were unclean and untidy on the first day because of staff absence. The home was clean throughout on the second day.
“On the first day of the inspection the home did not have a cleaner on duty due to unplanned absence. Some parts of the home were not clean.” from the report
Contingency planning and communication
needs fixingCommunication with the local authority and CQC was not always effective during the home's staffing difficulties. Inspectors recommended reviewing and improving contingency planning.
“There could have been more effective communication between the provider and other organisations, such as the local authority and CQC, regarding the challenges the home was experiencing at the time of the inspection visit.” from the report
One incident not reported
needs fixingInspectors found that one incident which significantly affected service delivery had not been reported to CQC. The report does not say that this resulted in enforcement action.
“However, we identified one incident which had significantly impacted upon service delivery and the provider had not notified CQC of this.” from the report
Fire exits briefly obstructed
minorSome fire exits were partly blocked by moving and handling equipment. Staff moved the equipment immediately.
“We found some fire exits partially obstructed by moving and handling equipment but this was relocated immediately by staff.” from the report
- 01What is your plan for maintaining cleaning standards when regular staff, including cleaners, are unexpectedly absent?
- 02How do you make sure agency staff quickly learn about the people living here and their individual needs?
- 03What changes have you made to contingency planning and communication with the local authority and CQC?
- 04What was the significant incident that was not reported to CQC, and what has been done to prevent this happening again?
- 05How do you check that fire exits remain clear throughout the day?
This began as a targeted infection prevention and control inspection and became a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 January 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, January 2019
Parkside (St Helens) Limited was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 11 December 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and visiting healthcare professionals. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and safety checks.
The home was providing accommodation and personal care for 22 people aged 65 and over. Inspectors found enough suitably skilled staff, safe medicines practice, clean and well-maintained premises, and systems to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm.
People told inspectors that staff were kind, respectful and helpful. Care plans reflected people's choices, food and drink needs were met, healthcare support was arranged when needed, and people could take part in activities or raise concerns.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection, published in April 2016, also rated the home Good.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough suitably qualified staff on duty during the day and night. People said call bells were answered quickly.
“There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff on duty throughout the day and night to safely meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were managed safely. Staff had suitable training and competency checks, and people said they received medicines on time and were offered pain relief.
“People told us they got their medication on time and were offered pain relief medication.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors also observed staff offering comfort, reassurance and respectful support.
“We observed staff treating people with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, routines, interests and intended outcomes. People were involved in reviews and could choose how they were supported.
“Care plans reflected people's likes and dislikes and their preferred routines.” from the report
Positive management
People, relatives and staff described the home as well managed. Inspectors found systems for checking quality, learning from incidents and making improvements.
“There was an effective system in place for checking on the quality and safety of the service and making improvements.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and update my relative's care plan, including their preferences, routines and communication needs?
- 02How many staff will usually be on duty for my relative's needs, and how quickly are call bells normally answered?
- 03How will you manage my relative's medicines, including checking that they are given at the right time and offering pain relief when needed?
- 04What activities would be suitable for my relative's interests, and how would you support them to join in without pressure?
- 05If my relative needs end of life care, what support and staff arrangements would be available?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the premises and care and assessed all five CQC questions; inspectors also reviewed selected records and spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 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 (St Helens) Limited
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Parkside (St Helens) Limited →
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Parkside (St Helens) Limited →
- June 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of St. Helens
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. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.