CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Parkville Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 15 December 2020. It looked at infection prevention and control because the home was managing a coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors found the home was clean, with regular cleaning and clear signs about infection control. Testing, risk assessments, social distancing, hand sanitiser and suitable personal protective equipment were in place.
The home worked with the local authority infection prevention and control team and other health professionals. Visitors had safety measures, and people could keep in touch with relatives when face-to-face visits were not possible.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas of care.
Testing and outbreak response
The home used the government testing scheme and worked with local health professionals to identify and manage the outbreak.
“The service was accessing the government testing scheme which had assisted them to identify an outbreak quickly.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home was clean and had regular cleaning arrangements. Signs reminded people about infection control procedures.
“The home was clean and had regular cleaning regimes in place.” from the report
Safe visiting
The home had measures to reduce infection risks during visits and other ways for people to stay in touch with relatives.
“Measures were in place to support visitors to safely access the service and prevent them from spreading infection during their visits.” from the report
Personal protective equipment
People isolating in their rooms had regular staff contact, and staff used personal protective equipment properly. Staff reported that supplies were plentiful.
“People isolating in their rooms had regular contact with staff who wore personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are infection prevention and control arrangements different now from those inspected in December 2020?
- 02What testing arrangements are currently used for residents and staff?
- 03How are visits managed if there is an infection risk or outbreak?
- 04How do staff support residents who need to isolate in their rooms?
- 05What is the current supply and use of personal protective equipment?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 December 2020 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 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care, with some records and communication still needing attention.
Inspectors visited on 14 and 15 September 2020 without an unannounced visit. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care, medicine and staff records, as well as the home’s management systems and infection control arrangements.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks, staffing, medicines and infection control were managed safely. Staff had the skills to support people, and people had access to health professionals.
The inspection followed a previous Requires Improvement rating and checked whether improvements had been made. The provider was no longer in breach of the regulations previously identified. Inspectors still found some gaps in food and fluid records, minor medicine recording issues, mixed feedback about visitors’ protective equipment and communication that could be better.
Risks were managed
People’s risks were regularly reviewed and staff knew how to respond. The home and its equipment were also found to be safe and well maintained.
“Risks to people were regularly reviewed. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of people and they had taken the right action when needed.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs, and staff were recruited safely. People said call bells were answered quickly.
“There were enough staff available to meet people's needs. Call bells were answered quickly.” from the report
Improved management
The home had effective quality checks and a more visible leadership team. Inspectors found that previous problems had been addressed.
“These systems along with a more visible leadership team had supported improvement at the home.” from the report
Good health support
Health professionals were involved in people’s care and their recommendations were followed. Referrals were made promptly when nutritional support was needed.
“Referrals to health professionals had been completed in a timely manner.” from the report
Food and fluid records
needs fixingRecords had improved but some gaps remained. Inspectors recommended keeping the recording of food and fluids under review.
“continued improvements were needed to minimise the gaps identified in some records.” from the report
Medicine recording
minorMedicines were managed safely, but inspectors found minor recording problems. The provider said these would be addressed.
“Minor recording issues were identified with medicine recordings.” from the report
Visitors’ protective equipment
minorRelatives gave mixed feedback about the use of protective equipment when visiting. The home began addressing this after receiving the feedback.
“We received mixed feedback from relatives about the use of PPE when visiting.” from the report
Communication
minorStaff and relatives said communication could be better. The provider said it would address this.
“Staff and relatives said communication could be improved.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that food and fluid records are complete and accurate?
- 02What changes have been made to prevent medicine recording errors?
- 03What protective equipment must relatives use when visiting, and how is this checked?
- 04What has the home done to improve communication with relatives?
- 05How are recommendations from health professionals recorded and followed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only, with infection control checked under Safe; the other question ratings were not reviewed on this visit and were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 October 2020 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 Parkville Care Centre
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 September 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Middlesbrough
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 £1,230 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.