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
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, infection control, risk assessments, staffing and building safety were checked and found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's care needs were assessed and staff had training and supervision. People were supported with consent, nutrition, hydration and access to healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not given a rating in this report. Inspectors recorded that people and relatives said staff were kind and caring.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not given a rating in this report. The report says people's preferences, relationships, communication needs and activity choices were recorded in their care plans.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers and staff understood their roles. The provider used audits, meetings, surveys and an improvement plan to monitor quality and act on concerns.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care, with clear improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out over four visits between 31 May and 23 June 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care records, recruitment files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels met people's needs, and infection risks were managed.
People's care needs were assessed before they moved in. Staff received training and support. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare and decisions about their care. Managers had systems to check quality, listen to views and make improvements.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, with breaches of regulations. The provider had completed an action plan. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made and that the home was no longer in breach of regulations.
Safe medicines
Medicine records had no gaps, stock checks matched the recorded amounts and as-needed medicines had clear guidance.
“Medicine administration records were completed correctly with no gaps and reasons for giving 'as needed' medicines were documented.” from the report
Enough staff
Records and feedback indicated that staffing levels were enough to meet people's needs. The rota allowed extra staff to move between floors when needed.
“Records confirmed there were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Good improvement systems
The provider used regular checks, meetings and an improvement plan. Inspectors found that earlier problems had been addressed.
“The provider had various quality assurance processes in place so improvements could be identified and actioned.” from the report
Short-notice staff absence
minorStaff said they could usually take breaks, but this was not always the case when someone called in sick at short notice. The report says the home could arrange extra help when needed.
“Staff told us there enough staff on duty to allow them to take breaks except occasionally when somebody called in sick at short notice.” from the report
- 01How do you maintain safe staffing levels when someone calls in sick at short notice?
- 02How are medicine records and stock checks reviewed now, and what happens if an error is found?
- 03How do you check that risk assessments remain detailed and reflect each person's current needs?
- 04How do you involve relatives in meetings and act on their feedback about care and food?
- 05How will you make sure the improvements found at this inspection continue?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection that rated Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not given ratings in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 September 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, May 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with medicines and infection control, undignified care and weak oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 14 and 21 April 2022. Inspectors observed care, spoke with staff and relatives, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, audits and other records. They could not speak to people in detail because the home had a COVID-19 outbreak.
Inspectors found that medicines were not always managed safely, suitable gloves were not always available, and infection control practice was poor. Some people missed medicines because supplies had run out. Care records lacked important detail, and some restrictions on people's liberty were not properly authorised or monitored.
People were not always treated with dignity and respect. The home had enough staff on duty according to the inspection, but staff and relatives reported recent staffing pressures. Management and quality checks had not found or dealt with important problems. The overall rating, and the ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led, changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
Safe recruitment
Inspectors found that recruitment checks were carried out safely. The provider had also recently recruited new staff.
“Staff were recruited safely in a way that ensured they were suitable to work in a care setting.” from the report
Safeguarding concerns were escalated
Relatives said they felt their family members were safe. The manager reported abuse allegations to the appropriate safeguarding authorities.
“The registered manager reported allegations of abuse to the appropriate safeguarding authorities and cooperated with investigations.” from the report
Food and drink support
People were supported to eat and drink enough. Inspectors also saw people being offered choices about food and drink in one dining area.
“People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet.” from the report
Action during the inspection
The provider acted promptly when inspectors raised some concerns. This included obtaining suitable protective equipment and arranging refresher training.
“The provider responded positively when issues with the quality and safety of the service were raised with them.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousSome people missed medicines because there was not enough stock. One medicine was given twice a week instead of weekly, causing it to run out.
“We reviewed this system with the provider and found several people had missed medicines due to not having enough in stock.” from the report
Infection control problems
seriousStaff did not always follow good infection control practice. Suitable gloves were unavailable at the start of the inspection, and some equipment could not be cleaned effectively.
“We saw staff did not adhere to good infection prevention and control (IPC) practice when dealing with episodes of incontinence and soiled laundry.” from the report
People's dignity was not protected
seriousInspectors saw staff speak about people's personal care loudly and support people in ways that were not respectful. Some staff used a task-focused approach.
“This shows people were not being treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Liberty restrictions were not properly managed
seriousSome restrictions on people's liberty had no current application, or conditions attached to authorisations had not been met.
“Three people's DOLs had expired and new applications had not been made.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits failed to identify problems with medicines, infection control and care plans. Action plans did not clearly set out how problems would be fixed.
“The failure to identify and address issues with the quality and safety of the service put people at risk of harm.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingCare plans were often general, lacked personal goals and sometimes contained conflicting information. Inspectors made a recommendation about making assessments more personalised.
“Care plans were high level descriptions of support that lacked detail.” from the report
- 01What checks now make sure medicines are always in stock, given that some people missed medicines during the inspection?
- 02What has changed in infection control, including the supply of suitable gloves and the condition of equipment?
- 03How are current liberty restrictions being reviewed, and how are the conditions of authorisations being tracked?
- 04How have care plans been rewritten to include each person's preferences, goals and detailed support instructions?
- 05What evidence can you show that the new quality audits identify and fix problems rather than just record them?
This began as a targeted inspection about infection control and health care concerns, then became a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 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
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2022Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 2016.
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 Waltham Forest
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 £1,200 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.