CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Parkview House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that staff understood safeguarding, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff. Some risk assessments lacked detail, the emergency plan was not easily accessible, and the visitor thermometer was not working on the inspection day.
- Effective?
- Good
- The person's needs and choices were assessed and used to create personalised care plans. Staff had essential training, while further training for some specific needs had been arranged.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated the person with respect, involved them in decisions and promoted independence. Inspectors saw positive and caring relationships between staff and the person.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised, reviewed and updated. The home supported communication, activities, relationships and access to the community, and had an accessible complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team used audits, staff meetings and feedback to monitor quality and make improvements. Inspectors found an open, inclusive culture and a clear focus on people's goals.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some risk and infection-control records needing more detail.
This was the first inspection since the home registered. It was unannounced and took place on 19 April 2022. One inspector spoke with one person, four staff and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home supported up to five women with mental ill health needs. Four people lived there at the time. One person received personal care from staff, and the inspection focused on the care and support provided to that person.
Inspectors rated all five areas Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found staff were kind, promoted independence, managed medicines safely and worked with health and social care professionals.
There were some shortfalls. Some risk assessments did not contain enough detail, the emergency plan was not easy for staff to access, and a visitor temperature-checking thermometer was not working. The manager acted on these issues during the inspection.
Kind and respectful staff
The person said staff encouraged them, respected them and wanted them to be happy. Inspectors also saw positive relationships focused on independence and rights.
“I can't fault the staff. They are respectful to me and they encourage me. They are genuine and want me to be happy.” from the report
Promoting independence
The home supported the person to develop skills and work towards greater independence, including cooking, meal planning and community activities.
“It's given me the perfect opportunity to progress to independence.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely. Records showed medicines were administered as prescribed, and staff had their medicines skills checked regularly.
“Medication administration records confirmed people's medicines had been administered as prescribed.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans were developed with the person and reflected their choices, preferences and needs. Staff adjusted support according to how the person was feeling and what they wanted to do.
“Care plans were personalised, reviewed and updated.” from the report
Positive leadership
Inspectors found staff and managers committed to learning and improving care. Audits were used to monitor quality and action was taken after feedback.
“The management team and staff shared a commitment to continuously learning and demonstrated their passion to provide good quality care.” from the report
Risk assessments lacked detail
needs fixingSome risk assessments did not give staff enough information to manage and reduce risks. The manager took immediate action to add further information.
“However, some risk assessments required further detail to ensure staff had the information they needed to manage and mitigate risk.” from the report
Emergency information was not easy to access
needs fixingThe emergency plan was up to date, but staff could not easily find it or the on-call manager's contact details during the visit. The manager addressed this during the inspection.
“The provider's emergency contingency plan contained up to date information but the plan nor the contact details for the on-call manager were easily accessible to staff during our visit.” from the report
Visitor temperature check was unavailable
minorThe thermometer used for visitor checks was not working on the inspection day. Inspectors asked for evidence of a negative lateral flow test instead.
“On the day of our visit the thermometer used to check visitor's temperature was not working.” from the report
Some specific training was still pending
minorStaff had completed essential training, but training linked to some of the person's specific needs had only been arranged at the time of inspection.
“Training to support some of the person's specific needs had been arranged.” from the report
- 01What extra detail has now been added to the person's risk assessments?
- 02Where are the emergency plan and on-call manager's contact details kept, and can staff access them quickly?
- 03Has the training for the person's specific needs now been completed?
- 04How do you check that medicines continue to be administered as prescribed?
- 05How will you support my relative to build independence and take part in activities they enjoy?
This was an unannounced first inspection of the newly registered care home and all five key questions were rated; CQC only inspected personal care because only one person received it. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 May 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 House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 October 2020.
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 Coventry
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 £1,260 a week. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“My mum would not eat, drink, bath nor sleep without her. In short, she was FAMILY and we loved her dearly”
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.