CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Parry House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective risk assessments, safeguarding arrangements, medicine systems and emergency procedures. There were enough staff to meet people's assessed needs, although relatives reported staff turnover.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant induction, supervision and training, including training about autism, epilepsy and behaviour. People received suitable food, healthcare and support based on their individual needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as calm, patient and respectful. People and relatives were involved in decisions about care, routines, activities and their living environment.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's routines, communication needs and preferences. People were supported to take part in activities, maintain relationships and make complaints, although some care plans were still being updated.
- Well-led?
- Good
- There was a clear management structure and regular checks on quality and safety. The manager had identified improvements needed in care plans, medicines management and the keyworker system, with some work still ongoing.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Parry House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some staffing and care-plan improvements still under way.
The CQC carried out an unannounced inspection on 30 July 2019. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment, incident and quality records.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People were described as safe and comfortable. Staff understood people's routines, needs and behaviour, and supported choice, independence and community activities.
Inspectors found safe systems for managing risks, medicines, safeguarding and the home environment. People had access to health professionals, suitable food and personalised care. The home was clean and staff treated people with dignity and respect.
The report also records some work in progress. There had been staff turnover, some care plans needed updating, and not everyone had yet been allocated a keyworker. The overall rating remained Good, as it had at the previous inspection published in February 2017.
Managing risks
Risk assessments covered areas such as epilepsy, eating and drinking, falls, finances and being out in the community. Staff had guidance to reduce risks and support people calmly.
“Assessments were comprehensive and effective in identifying how risks could be mitigated.” from the report
Health and activities
People had access to healthcare appointments and specialist advice. They were supported to take part in varied activities and to keep links with family and friends.
“People were encouraged to live active lives and maintain social networks.” from the report
Involving people
People and relatives were involved in care decisions and could give views about menus, shopping, bedrooms and communal areas.
“People and relatives told us the provider involved them in making decisions about care.” from the report
Staff turnover
minorTwo relatives were concerned about a high level of staff turnover over the previous year. The manager said new staff needed time to build their knowledge and relationships with people.
“Two relatives raised concern that there had been a high turnover in staff over the past year.” from the report
Care plans being updated
needs fixingThe manager had found that some care plans did not contain the most up-to-date information. A process to correct this had started but was not complete at the inspection.
“The registered manager had identified where some care plans required updating to ensure they contained the most up to date information.” from the report
Keyworker arrangements
minorThe keyworker system was being redeveloped after the previous system was judged ineffective when staff left. Some people had not yet been given a keyworker.
“For example, some people had not yet been allocated keyworkers.” from the report
- 01How many staff have left since the inspection, and how do you maintain continuity for each person?
- 02Have all care plans now been reviewed and updated when people's needs change?
- 03Has every person been allocated a keyworker, and what does that role involve?
- 04What minor issues did the medicines audit identify, and how were they resolved?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care, activities and staffing arrangements?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including observations, discussions and checks of care, medicines, staffing and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 August 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, February 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but some medicine records were incomplete.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 January 2017. One inspector reviewed four care plans, daily notes, medicine records and other records. They spoke with people, staff, managers, relatives and health professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, trained staff and safe medicine administration. They also found detailed care plans and good support for people's health, communication, choices and activities.
People were described as safe, happy and treated with kindness and respect. Inspectors found that the manager listened to people and staff, and that checks were used to improve the home.
There were a few issues to address. Some records for applying creams were incomplete. The home also had four staff vacancies, although staffing levels met people's needs at the inspection.
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Recruitment checks were thorough.
“The number of staff on duty meant there were enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Detailed care planning
Care plans gave staff clear, step-by-step guidance about people's needs, communication and preferences.
“People's plans of care were of a very high quality and included the appropriate information to ensure staff knew how to meet people's individual identified needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were supported by staff who knew them well and promoted their privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were treated with respect. Staff interacted positively with people, communicating with them at all times, throughout the duration of the visit.” from the report
Individual activities
Activities were tailored to people's choices, moods and needs. People were supported to take part both inside and outside the home.
“People's activities programmes were highly individual and designed to meet their specific needs.” from the report
Listening and improvement
The manager gathered views from people, families and staff and used audits to make changes to the home.
“The quality of care the service was providing was monitored and action was taken to improve and develop the service.” from the report
Incomplete cream records
needs fixingInspectors found gaps in the records showing that creams had been administered. The manager said this would be dealt with immediately.
“Some gaps in the records for administration of creams were noted.” from the report
Staff vacancies
needs fixingThe home had four staff vacancies and the manager was finding recruitment difficult. Staffing levels were nevertheless maintained during the period reviewed.
“The service currently had four vacancies which the registered manager was finding difficulty in recruiting to.” from the report
Safeguarding notifications
needs fixingThe report said some incidents had not been notified to CQC because the local authority decided whether they were safeguarding concerns. The manager undertook to notify CQC when the home identified an incident as safeguarding.
“The registered manager undertook to notify the CQC if she identified an incident as safeguarding.” from the report
- 01Have the gaps in records for applying creams been fully corrected, and how are these records checked now?
- 02How many staff vacancies remain, and how do you make sure staffing is safe when vacancies or absences occur?
- 03How do you decide when a safeguarding concern must be reported to CQC and the local authority?
- 04How are people's detailed communication and behaviour plans kept up to date when their needs change?
- 05How are people and their families involved in reviewing care plans and choosing activities?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, based on records reviewed and discussions with people, staff, managers, relatives and professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 2017 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 Parry House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014Inspected but not rated
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 January 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
42 live-in carers within about an hour of West Berkshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 36 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“Titus has compassion, patience, a great sense of humour and a very professional attitude.”
“Barbara treated my mother-in-law with enormous love and compassion and provided an environment where she could feel safe and seen”
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.