CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at South Park Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care but unsafe medicines and recruitment checks and weak oversight.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 11 and 12 October 2022. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, managers and other workers. They also checked care records, staff files, medicines records, training and management audits.
People and relatives generally said they felt safe and were happy with the care. Inspectors found good training, healthcare support, food, consent and caring treatment. The home was clean and staff supported people with dignity and respect.
However, medicines records and recruitment checks were not safe. Activities were limited, end of life wishes were not recorded, and there were not enough formal ways to gather feedback. Quality checks had failed to identify these problems, and there was no registered manager in post.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Effective and Caring were rated Good. The previous overall rating was Good, published in June 2018.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were positive about the care. Inspectors saw staff supporting people in a friendly way and respecting their choices.
“People using the service and their relatives told us that staff were caring and they were happy with the care they received.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received training in areas including safeguarding, dementia, falls and moving people safely. They also received supervision and checks on their ability to give medicines.
“Staff received the appropriate training and support to enable them to carry out their roles effectively.” from the report
Healthcare and nutrition
People could access healthcare professionals when needed. Inspectors found that people were supported with food, drinks and special dietary needs.
“People were supported to live healthier lives and were able to access healthcare services if needed.” from the report
Consent and independence
People were supported to make everyday choices, and staff respected decisions about personal care. Care was delivered in a way that promoted dignity and independence.
“People told us that staff asked for their consent and agreement before supporting them and they were able to make everyday choices.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousMedicines profiles were out of date and did not match medicines administration records. Controlled drugs records also did not match the administration records.
“We could not be assured that the provider's medicines systems were safe.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousSome staff files lacked proper references or a full employment history. The provider's application form did not give applicants space to record their employment history.
“We could not be assured that the provider operated safe recruitment procedures.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingThere were few activities when the activities coordinator was not working. Records gave little evidence of activities at those times.
“There was very little engagement from care workers and activities provision was sparse.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits and checklists were incomplete or blank and had not identified the medicines and recruitment problems. Some accident and incident records had not been signed off.
“We could not be assured that the provider's governance and audit processes were robust.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post, and no application had been submitted for the current manager to register.
“At the time of our inspection there was no registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01How have you corrected the medicines profiles, medicines administration records and controlled drugs records?
- 02What checks are now completed before staff start work, including references and employment history?
- 03Who is responsible for managing the home, and has an application now been made for the manager to register?
- 04What activities are available on days when the activities coordinator is not working?
- 05How do you now record people's end of life wishes and gather regular feedback from residents and relatives?
This unannounced inspection covered all five key questions and included infection prevention and control checks; the previous ratings were from an inspection published in 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 November 2022 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, June 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, but meaningful activities and end-of-life planning needed improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 2 and 15 May 2018. Inspectors reviewed information held about the home, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, observed care, and checked care plans, staff files and other records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found improvements since the previous inspections, including better fire safety, staff checks, training and management oversight.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. People did not have enough chances to take part in meaningful activities at the home or in the community. End-of-life wishes were not always recorded in care plans, and staff had not received end-of-life care training.
The home supports up to 11 older people living with dementia. At the inspection, 10 people lived there. The home does not provide nursing care.
Improved safety
Fire safety arrangements had improved since the previous inspection. Staff had completed fire training, joined evacuation drills and had clear guidance for evacuating each person.
“Records indicated staff now participated in quarterly fire evacuation drills of the premises and they had all completed their fire safety training.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff built friendly relationships with people and respected their privacy, dignity, communication needs and choices.
“We observed positive relationships had been developed between staff and the people living in the home.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans contained detailed information about people's needs, preferences, abilities and routines. Staff knew people well and used this information in daily care.
“We saw people's care plans were written in a person centred way and contained detailed information about each person's specific needs, abilities, likes and dislikes, life history, and people and places that were important to them.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found no gaps in the medicines records they checked and found enough staff to keep people safe.
“There remains enough staff suitably deployed in the care home to keep people safe.” from the report
Effective management
The home had regular checks covering care plans, risks, medicines, staff, fire safety, complaints and maintenance. The manager was actively involved in observing care and supporting staff.
“At this May 2018 inspection we found the provider continued to operate good governance systems to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service people received at the home.” from the report
Too few meaningful activities
needs fixingPeople did not have enough opportunities to follow their interests or go out. Inspectors often saw people sitting in the lounge or their bedrooms with the television on, without appearing interested in it.
“People did not have sufficient opportunities to follow their social interests and take part in meaningful recreational and leisure activities in the home or in the wider community.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
minorSome walls were worn and signs and visual clues were inconsistent. Similar colours in shared areas and bedroom doors could make it harder for people to find their way around.
“We recommend the provider seeks the relevant guidance and research on the design of the environment for people living with dementia.” from the report
- 01What meaningful activities are now available each day, based on each person's interests and dementia needs?
- 02How many hours does the activities coordinator now work, and what community activities or trips are available?
- 03Have all staff completed end-of-life care training, and where are each person's wishes recorded?
- 04What changes have been made to signs, colours and visual clues to make the home easier for people with dementia to navigate?
- 05How are families involved in reviewing activities and recording end-of-life preferences?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the care home environment, with ratings updated from the previous inspections. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 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 South Park Residential Home
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- November 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Merton
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
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.