CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Parkview
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks linked to mood, anxiety and behaviour were assessed and reduced. There were enough staff, safe recruitment checks and systems for medicines, emergencies and safeguarding.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and supervision. Care was planned around people's needs and choices, with support from health professionals where needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people's preferences, histories and routines. People were treated with dignity and encouraged to make decisions and develop everyday life skills.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's backgrounds, routines, preferences and goals. The home supported communication, family contact, activities, holidays, complaints and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager was visible and had good oversight of the home. Audits, feedback and action plans were used to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with strong support for independence, communication and health.
This was an unannounced inspection on 30 September and 4 October 2019. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, managers and care staff. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files, risk assessments, incident reports and quality checks.
The home supported up to nine people with learning disabilities and related conditions. Eight people were living there during the inspection. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe recruitment, suitable care plans and good support with behaviour, anxiety, health appointments, food and medicines.
People were treated with dignity and encouraged to make choices, build skills and become more independent. Staff used different communication methods, including pictures, symbols, easy-read information and Makaton. The home also supported family contact, activities, holidays and end of life care.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as at the previous inspection on 17 November 2016.
Personalised support
Staff understood people's individual needs and provided care based on their preferences, routines and goals.
“People received personalised care from staff who had a good understanding of their needs.” from the report
Managing anxiety and behaviour
The home used positive behaviour approaches and worked to reduce the use of restraint and medicines for anxiety or behaviour.
“Staff minimised the use of any form of restraint as a behaviour management strategy, adopting a positive behaviour approach to support people to remain calm.” from the report
Communication
Staff adapted communication to each person. They used pictures, symbols, easy-read information, social stories and Makaton.
“Staff were effective in meeting people's communication needs.” from the report
Independence and activities
People were supported to build everyday skills, use public transport, follow interests, attend activities and take holidays.
“People were supported to follow their interests, build their skills and explore their independence.” from the report
Health support
Staff helped people attend health appointments, understand treatment and respond quickly when health concerns were noticed.
“Staff were quick to notice changes in people's health and raise concerns with professionals.” from the report
Leadership and oversight
The manager was involved in the day-to-day running of the home. Audits and action plans were used to monitor care and safety.
“The registered manager had good oversight into the day to day culture of the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's particular communication needs, including any use of pictures, symbols, easy-read information or Makaton?
- 02What positive behaviour strategies would you use if my relative became anxious or distressed?
- 03How would you help my relative build independence and take part in activities that interest them?
- 04How would you support my relative to attend healthcare appointments and understand their treatment?
- 05How would you involve our family in care planning, reviews and decisions about contact?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; inspectors noted that people gave limited feedback and only one of four contacted professionals responded. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 November 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.
What inspectors found, November 2016
Parkview was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and highly responsive care, but some staff training was not up to date.
This was an announced comprehensive inspection on 24 and 30 August 2016. The inspector reviewed care plans, medicines, staff records, audits and safety checks. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff, managers and healthcare professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found positive relationships, detailed care plans, suitable staffing and safe medicines systems. They also found that health needs were monitored and supported exceptionally well.
There were some shortfalls. Not all staff had completed training updates within the provider's timescales, bank staff training was less current, and the target for staff supervision was not met. The easy-read complaints information was also temporarily unavailable.
Strong health support
Inspectors found that staff identified serious health concerns promptly and supported people through major treatments and recovery.
“People had received excellent support with a range of serious and complex health issues.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff had warm relationships with people and supported their dignity, privacy and choices in daily life.
“We saw very positive relationships between people and staff and it was evident people readily sought out contact with staff members.” from the report
Individual support
Care plans explained people's communication, health and behaviour needs in detail. Staff used this information to respond calmly and proactively.
“People's care plans were detailed and individualised and people had been consulted about their content using pictures and other tools” from the report
Activities and community life
People took part in activities, outings, holidays, music therapy and community events, with support tailored to their wishes.
“People had access to various activities within the service and the local community.” from the report
Active management
The management team sought views, monitored the service regularly and followed up actions through audits and development plans.
“The provider and management team had effective audit systems in place to monitor the operation of the service” from the report
Overdue training updates
needs fixingNot all staff had completed required training updates within the provider's own timescales. Further training was still needed.
“Longer term staff had attended the required core training for their role, although not all staff had updated this within the provider's own required time periods.” from the report
Bank staff training
needs fixingThe training of in-house bank staff was less current than that of permanent staff. Inspectors said this could affect whether their knowledge and skills were sufficiently current.
“Bank staff training was not as up to date as for the permanent staff, which could mean their knowledge and skills were not sufficiently current.” from the report
Supervision target missed
minorThe provider's target for established staff to receive six supervisions a year was not met, although staff did receive regular supervision.
“Although the supervision target was not met, staff received regular supervision and could request specific meetings if they wished.” from the report
Complaints information unavailable
minorThe easy-read complaints format had been taken down after being damaged. A replacement notice board was awaited.
“The service had an easy-read complaints format but the previously posted copy had been torn and taken down.” from the report
- 01Have all permanent staff now completed the training updates that were overdue at the inspection?
- 02How do you check that bank staff have current knowledge and skills before they work in the home?
- 03How many staff supervisions are currently completed each year, and how are missed supervisions followed up?
- 04Is the easy-read complaints information now displayed and available to people and visitors?
- 05How are people's complex health needs and hospital support arrangements recorded and reviewed?
This was an announced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 November 2016 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
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 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 8 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 Reading
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 £1,010 to £1,270 a week. 86 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
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.