CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Pine Park House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and risks were assessed. Staff were trained to give medicines, and medicines were checked in by two staff.
- Effective?
- Good
- Assessments involved people and families, and staff had relevant training and experience. Staff monitored health, supported appointments and worked with other professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People had trusting relationships with familiar staff. Staff respected privacy, dignity and communication needs, and encouraged people to develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised around people's routines, preferences and communication needs. People were supported to take part in activities, hobbies, education and trips.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open culture and sought views from people, families and staff. Audits and improvement plans were used to monitor care and make changes.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised respite care, with strong support for choice and independence.
This was a planned, announced inspection on 24 July 2019. The inspector spoke with four people, staff, managers and professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staffing, training and quality checks.
People enjoyed their planned short breaks and felt safe and well cared for. Staff knew people well, supported their communication, respected their privacy and helped them make choices and build independence. People also took part in activities, trips and hobbies.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The rating stayed Good from the previous inspection, published in February 2017.
Kind, familiar staff
People had built trusting relationships with a small team who knew their needs and preferences well.
“People and staff cared about each other and enjoyed spending time together.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's routines, likes, dislikes and communication methods. Staff adapted the home and support to individual preferences.
“People received personalised care, because staff knew them well and responded to their individual needs.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make daily choices and develop skills such as shopping, cooking and managing activities.
“Staff promoted people to increase their independence and develop new skills.” from the report
Effective support
Staff had relevant training and worked with health and social care professionals to respond to changes in people's health.
“Assessments were comprehensive and involved people and families.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff were trained and assessed to give medicines safely. Medicines brought in for stays were checked by two staff.
“People received their medicines safely and on time.” from the report
Open management
Managers were accessible and the home used feedback, audits and improvement plans to develop the service.
“The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided and made improvements in response to their findings.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you match staff and staffing levels to my relative's needs for each planned stay?
- 02How will you support my relative if they need a first-floor room but cannot use the stairs?
- 03How will you use my relative's communication method, such as pictures, symbols, Makaton or PECS?
- 04How are medicines checked when my relative arrives, and what action would you take if a dose was missed?
- 05How often will the registered manager or deputy be available during my relative's stay?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care, the premises, medicines, staffing, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 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
Pine Park House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised respite care, with feedback from surveys not reaching the home promptly.
The inspection took place on 10 and 12 January 2017. It was announced in advance. Inspectors met three people, spoke with two of them and contacted five family carers. They also spoke with five staff and reviewed care plans, records, medicines information and how the home was managed.
The inspectors found that people were safe. Risks such as choking, mobility problems and medicines were assessed and managed. There were enough staff, the building was clean and well maintained, and medicines were handled safely. Staff were trained and knew how to protect people from abuse.
People received care that was kind, respectful and tailored to their needs. They enjoyed activities, had choices about food and care, and had access to health professionals when needed. All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. This means the inspectors found the service met the required standards, although it was not rated Outstanding.
Managing risks
The home understood people's individual risks, including swallowing, mobility and safety when out. Staff had clear plans to reduce those risks.
“Individual risks were very well assessed and managed.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and checked carefully. People were supported to manage their own medicines where this was safe and suitable.
“Medicines and records were clear and well organised.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and families spoke highly of the care. Inspectors saw relaxed relationships and found that privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“People were treated with respect and dignity. Their privacy was upheld.” from the report
Personalised respite
Care plans described what people liked and needed in detail. Activities and respite arrangements were adapted to people's preferences and routines.
“People's care was planned in detail with them and they received person centred care from staff who knew their needs well.” from the report
Open management
The home had regular audits and checks. People, families and staff were encouraged to share their views and raise issues.
“There was a strong culture of putting people first.” from the report
Delayed survey feedback
minorThe home did not receive completed family and user questionnaires for several months because they were sent first to the council. This could delay the home's response to feedback.
“The completed questionnaires were not available but would go initially to the County Council who will then give feedback to the service, although this was many months later.” from the report
- 01How quickly will the home receive and act on feedback from families and people using the service?
- 02What is the current position on the six applications relating to restrictions on people's liberty?
- 03How will staffing be arranged for my relative's particular needs, including any one-to-one support?
- 04How will my relative's swallowing, dietary or other health needs be shared with staff before their respite stay?
- 05What activities and daily routines could be planned around my relative's interests and preferences?
This was a planned inspection covering all five areas, based on visits on two days, conversations with people, families and staff, and reviews of selected care and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 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 Pine Park 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
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.