CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 85 Park Road
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People were generally protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and medicines were mostly administered safely. However, there were concerns about allergy information, as-required medicine instructions, medicine checks and the use of agency staff.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- People were not always supported safely with their individual nutritional needs, and records did not give staff enough guidance. Staff training and understanding of mental capacity and unlawful restrictions also had gaps.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were usually treated with dignity, privacy and respect, and were supported to make choices and remain independent. Inspectors also saw limited engagement on some occasions, depending on the staff member.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans were sometimes inconsistent, incorrect or out of date. Activities and communication were not always meaningful or suited to people's individual needs.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had audits, meetings and partnership working, but its checks had not identified important shortfalls. Inspectors found that management oversight was not robust enough to ensure people received safe, up-to-date and person-centred care.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but people were at risk because nutrition, records, activities and communication were not always managed safely.
This was an announced inspection of the care home in November 2023. One inspector visited on 6 and 13 November, and inspection activity ended on 16 November. The inspector spoke with relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home supported six people with sensory impairments. Inspectors found that people were usually treated with dignity and respect, and medicines were mostly given safely. However, care records were sometimes out of date, and people did not always receive safe support with their individual eating and drinking needs.
Activities and communication were not consistently suited to people's needs. Staff engagement varied, and inspectors found that monitoring systems had not identified these problems. The home breached rules about person-centred care, nutrition and hydration, and good governance.
The overall rating is Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good, while Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. The previous overall rating was Good in 2017. The provider must send an action plan, and the CQC will monitor progress with the provider and local authority.
Kind and respectful care
People were supported with privacy and dignity, and staff encouraged independence and respected people's choices.
“Staff supported people with their personal care with dignity and privacy and they enabled people to be independent in their day to day lives.” from the report
Safeguarding arrangements
The home had systems for responding to suspected abuse, and staff knew how to raise concerns.
“Systems had been developed which supported the investigation and actions if abuse was suspected.” from the report
Safe medicine administration
Inspectors observed medicines being given safely, and staff had received medicine training and competency checks. Some medicine records and procedures still needed improvement.
“We observed medicines being given safely and medicines records signed.” from the report
Health professional involvement
People were supported to access healthcare, and records showed involvement from health and care professionals.
“People were supported to access health care services and we saw evidence of the involvement of health and care professionals in their care.” from the report
Personalised environment
Bedrooms were personalised, and the home was being refurbished. Staff kept the layout consistent to help people with visual impairments move around safely.
“People's bedrooms were nicely decorated and personalised.” from the report
Nutrition and hydration records
seriousThe home did not always record how to meet a person's specific nutritional needs or what staff should do if concerns arose. Fluid records did not confirm that drinks had been provided according to assessed needs.
“People were not always supported to eat and drink safely.” from the report
Out-of-date care plans
seriousSome care records did not accurately describe people's current needs. This could leave staff without reliable instructions for providing care.
“Care records were in place and included some good information about people's diverse needs and inclusion. However, guidance in the care plans was sometimes inconsistent, incorrect or out of date.” from the report
Limited activities and communication
seriousPeople were not consistently supported with meaningful activities or with communication suited to their sensory needs. Inspectors also observed limited interaction and one instance of undignified support during an activity.
“The service lacked an engaging atmosphere, with very few interactions noted with either staff or people.” from the report
Variable staffing skills
needs fixingFeedback about staffing levels and staff skills was mixed. Agency staff were sometimes used, and inspectors found that the quality of support depended on the staff team on duty.
“During our observations we noted staffing abilities and skills depended on the member of the staff team.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits were being completed, but they had not found the problems identified during the inspection. The home therefore did not have strong enough checks to drive improvement.
“Audits and monitoring was being undertaken. However, they failed to identify the shortfalls we noted at this inspection” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to care plans so they accurately describe each person's current needs?
- 02How do you now record and check each person's food and fluid needs, including specialist advice and what staff should do if there is a concern?
- 03What meaningful activities and sensory sessions are available for my relative, and how do you check that they are taking part in activities they enjoy?
- 04How do you make sure all staff, including agency staff, understand each person's communication methods and individual care needs?
- 05What new checks or audits have been introduced to make sure the problems found by the CQC are identified and corrected?
This was an announced inspection covering all five key questions and both the premises and care provided; visits took place on 6 and 13 November, with inspection activity ending on 16 November. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 2023 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 2017
SENSE - 85 Park Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no breaches reported.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 10 and 11 August 2017. Inspectors reviewed records, watched care, spoke with staff and managers, contacted health and social care professionals, and received feedback from relatives of all four people living at the home.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found safe recruitment, suitable staffing, well-managed medicines, appropriate training and good support with health, food and drink.
People could not give their views directly because of their complex communication needs. However, inspectors observed kind and respectful care. Relatives said they were happy with the care, activities, communication and management of the home.
The home had been rated Good at the previous inspection and remained Good. Inspectors found that audits, care records and feedback systems were helping to maintain quality and safety.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff available during both inspection days to meet people's needs promptly. Staffing rotas also showed that the home's minimum staffing levels had been met.
“During both days of our inspection we found that there were enough staff available to support people and respond to their needs in a timely way.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's needs and preferences and treated them with patience and sensitivity. People appeared relaxed and could move around the home freely.
“During our visits we observed staff interacting with people in a kind, patient and sensitive way.” from the report
Personalised communication
Staff used communication charts, objects of reference and a hand-under-hand approach to help people make choices and communicate their needs.
“This means that the person can take their hand away at any time and offers the person choice, control and a sense of freedom.” from the report
Good activities and community access
People were supported to take part in activities at home and regularly go out into the community. Records showed a wide range of outings and activities.
“Relatives and staff told us that people went out almost every day and this was confirmed by the records we reviewed.” from the report
Effective oversight
The registered manager used feedback, regular meetings and audits to check the service. Inspectors found that these systems helped maintain quality and safety.
“We found evidence that the audits completed had been effective in ensuring that appropriate levels of quality and safety were maintained at the service.” from the report
Night staffing during holidays
minorOne relative questioned whether staffing was always sufficient at night during holiday periods, when fewer people stayed at the home. Inspectors checked three weeks of rotas and found the home's minimum staffing levels had been met.
“One relative queried whether there were always enough staff on duty at night during holiday periods, when some people stayed with their family members and the number of staff on duty reduced.” from the report
Worn lounge furniture
minorOne relative said some lounge furniture was worn and uncomfortable. The manager told inspectors that replacement sofas and chairs had been ordered and were awaiting delivery.
“We noted that one relative had requested that some of the lounge furniture be replaced as it was worn and uncomfortable.” from the report
- 01How many staff are on duty at night during holiday periods, and how do you decide whether this is enough?
- 02Have the replacement lounge sofas and chairs now been delivered?
- 03How will you learn what my relative wants if they cannot communicate verbally?
- 04How are relatives involved in care plan reviews and decisions about changes in care?
- 05What activities and community outings would be suitable for my relative?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas, and the Good ratings remained unchanged from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 September 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 85 Park Road
3 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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 £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.