CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Parkview Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicines, infection control, staffing, recruitment and incident monitoring had improved. However, risk assessments did not always clearly record the safety checks and equipment staff needed to use.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Staff training, induction and supervision had improved, and care plans better reflected current needs. Future plans and goals were not always fully documented, and the service was still moving between paper and electronic records.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw warm, respectful relationships. People were offered choices, involved in their care and supported to maintain their independence and dignity.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Staff knew people's preferences and how to respond when they were upset or anxious. People were supported with activities, community access, relationships and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality checks and action plans were stronger, and leaders were open about the improvements needed. Some actions and staff meetings were not yet fully embedded in everyday practice.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but safety records, unfinished decoration and management systems still needed work.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 25 April 2023. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home had improved since earlier inspections. Medicines were administered safely, staffing levels were sufficient for people's current needs, and staff understood safeguarding. People were treated with kindness, involved in decisions and supported to follow their interests.
Some work was still unfinished. Risk assessments did not always clearly record the safety measures staff needed to check, some decoration had not been completed, and new quality systems needed to become consistent.
The overall rating changed from Inadequate to Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were Good. The home left Special Measures after this inspection.
Kind, respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect.
“Staff were compassionate and treated people with kindness and respect.” from the report
Safer medicines
Medicines were stored and given safely. Records and audits had improved, including guidance for medicines given only when needed.
“Medicines were administered and stored safely.” from the report
Improved staffing and training
There were enough staff for people's current needs, and mandatory training was up to date. Recruitment checks had also improved.
“At this inspection, there were enough staff on shift to meet people's needs and the planning on future rotas was robust to ensure staffing levels were safe.” from the report
People's choices and interests
People were involved in care planning, food choices and daily decisions. They could take part in activities and use the garden and wider community.
“We observed people being offered choices throughout the day of the inspection and where a choice was made this was respected and acted upon.” from the report
Progress in oversight
The management team had introduced stronger audits, action plans and reviews of incidents, complaints and safeguarding concerns.
“At this inspection, quality assurance processes were more robust, effective, and action plans were evident to drive improvements.” from the report
Risk records not always clear
needs fixingRisks were generally being managed, but written assessments did not always tell staff exactly what to check or put in place. This included checks linked to smoking in a person's room.
“Further improvements were required to the documenting of these risks.” from the report
Unfinished decoration
minorRenovation work was still ongoing, with some walls only partly painted. The home was nevertheless described as clean, tidy and homely.
“This meant that some of the décor was still not finished in parts of the building, for example, walls only half painted.” from the report
Systems not fully embedded
needs fixingNew management and staff-meeting processes had improved but were not yet consistently established. The report says further time was needed to show they worked reliably.
“However, these changes need to be embedded and effective over time.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure every risk assessment clearly records the equipment and checks staff must complete?
- 02What is the timetable for finishing the remaining decoration and renovation work?
- 03How are you checking that care plans include people's future plans and goals, as well as their current needs?
- 04When will the home move to one consistent care-record system, rather than using both paper and electronic records?
- 05How will you make sure staff meetings and the new quality checks remain regular and effective?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; it checked progress after earlier breaches and enforcement action. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 July 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, October 2022
Rated Inadequate and still in special measures; inspectors found serious safety, staffing, care planning and management failures.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 23 and 26 May 2022. Two inspectors spoke with one person, three staff members and a senior manager. They observed care and medicines management and checked records, staff files, maintenance records and provider audits.
The home remained Inadequate overall. Safe and well-led were rated Inadequate, while effective was rated Requires Improvement. Caring and responsive were not given ratings in this report.
Fire safety improvements had been completed since the previous inspection. However, the home still had unclean and damaged areas, incomplete risk assessments, gaps in staff training, unsafe medicines arrangements and care plans that did not reflect people's current needs.
The home remained in special measures because it had been rated Inadequate over two consecutive comprehensive inspections. The CQC said it would monitor progress and re-inspect, normally within six months.
Fire safety work
The fire safety improvements required after the previous inspection had been completed. Cluttered areas had also been cleared.
“Areas previously found to require actions and improvements to meet fire safety regulations had been carried out.” from the report
Garden and communal areas
Some shared areas had been tidied and made clearer. People used the garden and said they liked it.
“There was a garden which people told us they really liked, and we saw people using.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Staff could identify different types of abuse and said they knew how to raise concerns.
“Staff we spoke with could describe different forms of abuse, they felt confident raising safeguarding concerns and knew how to do this to the manager.” from the report
Openness when things went wrong
Staff and senior managers understood their responsibility to be open and honest when something went wrong.
“Staff and senior managers understood their responsibility relating to Duty of Candour.” from the report
People were at risk of avoidable harm
seriousImportant risks were not properly assessed or acted on. These included fire risks, changes in mobility, emollient cream use and diabetes-related health risks.
“The provider had failed to ensure that people were protected from the risk of avoidable harm.” from the report
Poor cleanliness and repairs
seriousSome communal areas and bathrooms were dirty, and parts of the building needed repair. Cleaning schedules were not consistently followed.
“Cleaning tasks in some communal areas, such as toilets, were not completed daily.” from the report
Staffing and training gaps
seriousThere were not always enough staff with the right skills, including at night. Mandatory, specialist and refresher training was incomplete.
“There were not always enough staff working with the right mix of skills to meet people's needs.” from the report
Care plans were not reliable
seriousCare plans did not accurately describe current needs, choices, health risks or future goals. People had not always been involved in their plans.
“Care plans were not up to date or reflective of people's current needs and choices.” from the report
Medicines controls were weak
seriousMedicine storage temperatures were not properly monitored, and medicine room keys were left unattended. The home was not prepared to store temperature-controlled medicines.
“Temperature of the medicine storage cupboard was not being monitored effectively.” from the report
Management and records failed
seriousAudits did not lead to needed improvements. Sensitive care plans were kept in an unlocked office, and a serious injury was not recorded or reported to the CQC.
“Care plans contained personal and sensitive information which the registered manager had not ensured were stored securely and only accessed by those authorised to do so.” from the report
- 01What has been done to complete the outstanding repairs and deep cleaning, and how is this checked now?
- 02How many staff are working on each shift, especially at night, and what training have they completed?
- 03Have every person's care plan and risk assessments been reviewed with them and updated to reflect their current needs?
- 04How are medicines stored and checked, including storage temperatures and access to medicine room keys?
- 05What action has been taken to improve audits, secure records and record and report serious incidents?
This was a focused, unannounced inspection to check the previous action plan and fire safety warning notice; Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated, while Caring and Responsive were not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 October 2022 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 Parkview Care Home
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- July 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2022Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2022Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Brighton and Hove
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 £1,020 to £1,280 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Lottie showed incredible patience and empathy, adapting her routine to fit in with Mum's moods. Most importantly, Lottie's cheerful manner helped Mum to get some enjoyment out of life.”
“He was infinitely patient with them and got on very well with us to the extent that we now regard him as a personal friend.”
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.