CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Parkview Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found medicines were administered safely, risks were assessed, staffing was sufficient and recruitment checks were in place. They noted that risks were not always fully identified in every relevant part of care plans.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training, supervision and support, and people were supported with food, healthcare and their individual needs. Consent was usually sought, but the capacity of one person to consent to an intimate care task had not been assessed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and compassionate and treated people with dignity. People were supported to make choices, maintain relationships and develop their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People received personalised support and took part in activities linked to their interests, culture and choices. Care plans were detailed but did not always include the most up-to-date information about significant changes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team carried out audits, identified shortfalls and took action to improve the service. Inspectors found an open, person-centred culture and regular feedback from people, relatives and staff.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, but some care records did not fully reflect current needs.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 6 December 2018. It was announced 24 hours in advance because some people could be anxious about visitors. One inspector spoke with people, staff and managers, and checked care records, medicines, staff files, training, complaints and other records.
The home supported eight people with learning disabilities and/or mental ill health. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported by staff who understood their needs. Medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were sufficient, and the home worked with health professionals.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating stayed Good, as it had been at the previous inspection on 13 January 2016. Inspectors found no serious risks or concerns.
Safe medicines support
Medicine records were completed correctly, staff had suitable training and competency checks, and regular audits were carried out.
“These had been completed correctly. If people took medicine on an as required basis there was guidance for staff on when this could be given.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people's preferences and supported them warmly, while promoting privacy, dignity and choice.
“People had their privacy, dignity and independence promoted.” from the report
Individual activities and goals
People were supported to follow their interests, attend culturally relevant activities and work towards personal goals.
“People were supported to follow their interests and take part in activities that were socially and culturally relevant.” from the report
Strong staff knowledge
Staff understood people's health needs, preferences and signs that someone might be becoming unwell. They worked with healthcare professionals when support was needed.
“Staff were knowledgeable about people's healthcare needs, they knew how to recognise when a person was unwell even when the person had difficulty communicating this” from the report
Active management oversight
Managers used audits and checks to identify and address shortfalls, and staff said they felt supported and able to approach management.
“The management team carried out a number of audits to check the service being provided was of a good quality” from the report
Care plans not fully up to date
needs fixingCare plans did not always reflect significant changes in people's needs. Staff had to read separate review records as well as the care plan to understand current support needs.
“The care plan was not updated to reflect these. This meant staff had to read the reviews as well as the care plan to fully understand the current needs of the person.” from the report
Risk information not consistent
needs fixingOne risk was clearly assessed, but the information in another part of the care plan did not fully reflect it. The manager agreed to show risks clearly wherever they affected care.
“There was a clear risk assessment in place however, information in another section of their care plan did not fully reflect the risk.” from the report
One consent assessment outstanding
needs fixingOne person received an intimate care task in their best interests, but their capacity to consent to that task had not been assessed at the time of inspection.
“One person was supported with an intimate care task. This was done in their best interests and was necessary to promote their health, however their consent for this task had not been assessed.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans been updated so they contain the most current information about each person's needs?
- 02How do you make sure risks are recorded consistently in every relevant section of a person's care plan?
- 03Was the outstanding capacity assessment for intimate care completed, and how is consent recorded now?
- 04How are staff kept informed when a person's needs change between formal care plan reviews?
- 05How do people and their relatives give feedback or raise a complaint, and what changes have resulted from this feedback?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the ratings remained Good in every area. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 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 Parkview 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
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 December 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 Birmingham
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 £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.