CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Parris Lawn
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed and staff knew how to protect people from harm. There was a high reliance on agency staff, and one call bell was not answered promptly.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received suitable food and drinks, staff had training, and people were supported to access doctors and other health professionals. Some mental capacity assessments had not always been completed, but this was being addressed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw respectful interactions, support for people's choices, and care that protected privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and activities were available, including individual support for people who did not join group activities. Complaints had not always been recorded or dealt with, and end of life plans were not yet detailed enough.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- A new management team was making substantial improvements and had an action plan. However, leadership had been inconsistent, records were incomplete and communication with relatives about concerns and changes was not always good.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but the home's leadership and records required improvement.
Inspectors visited on 29 and 30 October 2019. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with 20 people, 10 relatives and 22 staff. They observed care, meals and activities, and checked care records, medicine records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good for safety, effectiveness, caring and responsiveness. Medicines were managed safely at the time of the inspection. There were enough staff during the visit, although the home relied heavily on agency staff. People were treated kindly, supported to make choices, and offered suitable food, activities and contact with health professionals.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led. A new management team had started significant improvements after concerns about medicines, staffing, complaints, records and end of life care. Inspectors said more time was needed for these changes to become part of everyday practice.
Safe medicines support
Inspectors found systems in place to give medicines safely and at the right times. Staff recorded the effects of as-required medicines and used guidance to avoid unnecessary use.
“At the time of the inspection systems were in place to ensure medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff supported people's choices, privacy and independence.
“We observed caring and compassionate interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Suitable food and choices
People were offered meal choices and diets suited to their needs. Staff provided extra support when people needed help to eat or drink.
“Where people required specialist diets such as soft, pureed or fortified these were provided appropriately.” from the report
Personalised support
Regular staff knew people well. Newer and agency staff were supported by colleagues who understood people's needs.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Improvement work had started
A new management team had listened to people, relatives and staff and had begun work across several problem areas.
“There was evidence of significant work having taken place to improve and develop the service.” from the report
Leadership and oversight
needs fixingThe well-led rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Inspectors said the changes made by the new management team needed more time to become consistent in daily practice.
“Further time is needed to fully embed the changes into everyday practice.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingCare plans did not always include all the information staff needed. Important information was sometimes in handover or medicine records instead, which could make it harder for new staff to find.
“People's records had not always been well completed.” from the report
Complaints not always dealt with
needs fixingSome complaints and concerns had not been recorded or addressed properly. The management team had started an action plan to improve this.
“The management team found evidence of complaints raised that had not been recorded or addressed.” from the report
End of life planning
needs fixingEnd of life care training and more detailed care plans were still being developed. Existing plans included some wishes but were not detailed.
“Care plans included some information about people's end of life wishes. For example, if the person wished to be resuscitated in the event of a cardiac arrest, but these were not detailed.” from the report
Reliance on agency staff
needs fixingInspectors found enough staff during the visit, but the home relied heavily on agency workers. The provider was recruiting permanent staff and trying to use familiar agency workers.
“We found there were enough staff working, however, there was a high reliance on agency staff.” from the report
- 01What actions from the management team's plan have now been completed, and how do you check that improvements are lasting?
- 02How do you make sure each person's care plan contains all the information staff need, including for diabetes and mental capacity decisions?
- 03How are complaints recorded, investigated and answered, and how will relatives be told about the outcome?
- 04What end of life care training have nurses and care staff completed, and are detailed end of life plans now in place?
- 05How many permanent and agency staff are currently working, and how do you maintain continuity when agency staff are used?
This inspection was prompted by concerns about medicines, staffing and end of life care, was carried out earlier than planned, and rated all five key questions; the previous overall rating was used in planning after the provider's legal entity changed. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 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, September 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some records and activity plans still being developed.
Inspectors visited on 25 and 26 July 2018. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people living in the home, visitors, staff and health professionals. They observed care and meals and reviewed care plans, medicines, recruitment, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training and good support with health, food and drink. Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect.
Care was based on people's needs, choices and interests. There were activities, outings and support for people at the end of life. The home was clean, well maintained and purpose-built. Inspectors also found that some activity plans and daily notes did not yet fully show the care people received.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people as individuals and treated them with patience, compassion and respect. Inspectors saw staff taking time to talk with people and support their choices.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion by staff who knew people really well.” from the report
Safe care
The home had risk assessments, safeguarding procedures, emergency plans and medicines checks. Staff understood people's individual risks and how to reduce them.
“People's risks were managed safely.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could choose how to spend their time, with group activities, individual activities, outings and opportunities to remain independent.
“There was a range of activities taking place and people told us they had enough to do throughout the day.” from the report
Clean and suitable home
The purpose-built building was clean, tidy and well maintained. It offered accessible areas, private spaces, gardens and facilities for people and visitors.
“Parris Lawn was clean and tidy throughout and well maintained.” from the report
Activity plans were incomplete
minorAlthough activities were taking place, people's care plans did not yet fully record their activity interests and plans. The manager knew about this and was working to improve it.
“Although people enjoyed a range of activities this was not fully reflected in people's care plans.” from the report
Daily records needed improvement
needs fixingInspectors found that daily notes did not always show the person-centred support people received. The manager was working with staff to address this, alongside recording problems with the electronic system.
“They also recognised the daily notes did not always reflect the person-centred support people received and were working with staff to address this.” from the report
Training updates had not started
minorStaff had completed initial training, but refresher updates had not yet been received because the home had been open for less than a year. Ask how this has progressed.
“As the home had been open for less than a year and staff had completed training when they started work updates had not yet been received by staff.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the activity plans so they show each person's interests and choices?
- 02How do you make sure daily notes accurately record the person-centred care people receive?
- 03What progress has been made in fixing the recording problems with the electronic care planning system?
- 04How do you review staffing levels as more people move in or people's needs change?
- 05Have staff now received the planned training updates, and how are their competencies checked?
This was the first planned inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five CQC questions, including care, premises, records, staffing, medicines and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 September 2018 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 Parris Lawn
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 June 2018.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.