CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Parkvale
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections, using personal protective equipment safely, supporting testing, and managing social distancing and shielding. They were also assured that outbreaks could be prevented or managed effectively.
- 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, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements.
This was a planned, announced inspection on 4 March 2021. It was a targeted review of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, social distancing, shielding, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning and infection outbreaks appropriately. They also found that the infection control policy was up to date.
The home had enough personal protective equipment, handwashing facilities and signs. It also provided an exercise room during lockdown, used no agency staff, and kept individual risk assessments in place.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or a rated judgement across all five areas of care.
Visitor infection controls
Visitors had temperature checks and had to answer relevant questions before entering. The home also had personal protective equipment, handwashing facilities and signs.
“All visitors had to undergo a temperature check and answer a range of relevant questions before entry.” from the report
Support for exercise
The home created an exercise room so people could continue exercising when they could not go to the gym during lockdown.
“Staff had set up one room as an exercise space with an exercise bike and weights” from the report
Continuity of care
The home had not used agency staff and had individual risk assessments to support social distancing and other government guidance.
“The service had not used agency staff and ensured people received a continuity of care.” from the report
Infection control oversight
The manager showed an understanding of changing national guidance and worked with outside agencies to protect people.
“The registered manager demonstrated a sound understanding of sometimes changing national guidance” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently checked for signs of infection before entering the home?
- 02How do you provide personal protective equipment and testing for people living here and staff?
- 03How do you manage social distancing and shielding for each person?
- 04What arrangements are in place to prevent or manage an infection outbreak?
- 05Is the exercise space still available, and how do you support people who cannot attend outside activities?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide an overall rating or assess all areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 April 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, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some reduction in permanent staff.
Inspectors visited on 4, 5 and 10 September 2019. They spoke with people, a relative and staff. They reviewed care, medicine and recruitment records, inspected the home and checked other records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were treated with dignity, involved in their care and supported to be independent.
People had individual care plans, safe medicines support and appropriate risk assessments. Staff supported people with activities, education, work and community life. The home had systems to monitor quality and learn from incidents and complaints.
This was the same overall rating as at the previous inspection, published on 2 March 2017. Inspectors said there were enough staff at the time, although the number of permanent staff had reduced and agency staff were being used while recruitment continued.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, develop skills and take part in community life. They attended college, pursued work and volunteering opportunities, and followed their own interests.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills, accessing the local community and become more independent.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans were detailed and individual. People were involved in planning their support and their needs were regularly reviewed.
“People's care plans were detailed and very individualised to reflect the level of support required.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People were positive about the care and said staff respected their dignity and privacy. Staff supported people while allowing them to remain as independent as possible.
“People told us they were happy about the care they received and that it met their needs.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Medicines were stored, audited and administered safely. Risks were recorded, reviewed and managed, including risks linked to going out into the community.
“Medicines continued to be managed safely.” from the report
Fewer permanent staff
minorStaff said the number of permanent staff had reduced. The home said it was recruiting and using agency staff in the meantime, although inspectors found staffing levels were enough for people's assessed needs.
“There were enough staff to support people in line with their assessed needs, but staff did comment that the number of permanent staff had reduced.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff currently work at the home, and how often are agency staff used?
- 02How will you make sure people have consistent support while recruitment continues?
- 03How are people involved in reviewing their care plans when their needs or goals change?
- 04What activities, education, work or volunteering opportunities would be available for my relative?
- 05How are medicines, incidents and complaints checked, and how are lessons shared with people and relatives?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided; the previous overall rating was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 October 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 Parkvale
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 May 2012.
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
30 live-in carers within about an hour of North Tyneside
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 £1,130 a week. 26 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.