CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Params
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention measures, including PPE, testing, admissions, visitor arrangements and social distancing. They were only somewhat assured about the layout and hygiene arrangements because cleaning records, locked clinical waste bins and spill kits were not fully in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 controls but some cleaning and clinical waste arrangements needed improvement.
This was a targeted inspection on 3 March 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic. The visit was announced.
Inspectors were assured about visitor safety, social distancing, admissions, PPE, testing and managing infection outbreaks. The home also kept families in touch through calls, emails, texts and video visits.
Some arrangements were not fully in place. There was no system to show staff had completed cleaning, the outside clinical waste bins were not locked, and spill kits were not available. The home said it would address these points.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated judgement for the five questions.
COVID-19 precautions
The home had arrangements to screen visitors, carry out testing where needed, use PPE and support safe admissions.
“The provider was following best practice guidance to prevent visitors to the home spreading COVID-19 infection.” from the report
Keeping families connected
The home used calls, emails, text messages, video conferencing, garden visits and socially distanced doorstep visits to help people stay in touch with relatives.
“The provider had individual visitor plans and they kept in touch with family members and people's friends through regular phone calls, emails, text messages and video conferencing.” from the report
Staff followed guidance
Inspectors saw staff using PPE and following social distancing guidance during the visit.
“Our observations during the inspection confirmed staff were adhering to PPE and social distancing guidance.” from the report
Cleaning records
needs fixingThere was no system showing that staff had completed cleaning. The home said it would introduce one.
“There was no system in place to indicate staff had completed their cleaning; the provider informed they would implement a system for this.” from the report
Clinical waste bins
needs fixingThe clinical waste bins outside the home were not locked. The home said locks would be installed.
“The clinical waste bins outside the service were not locked; the provider assured us they would install locks for these bins.” from the report
Spill kits and audit actions
needs fixingSpill kits for blood and bodily fluids were not available. Some actions identified through infection control audits had also not been completed.
“For example, there were no spill kits to deal with spillage of blood and bodily fluids; the provider informed us all the actions from the infection prevention and control audits would be implemented.” from the report
- 01Has the system for recording completed cleaning now been introduced, and how is it checked?
- 02Have locks been fitted to the clinical waste bins outside the home?
- 03Are spill kits for blood and bodily fluids now available?
- 04Have all actions from the infection prevention and control audits been completed?
- 05How are infection prevention arrangements kept up to date for visitors and new admissions?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the home was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 March 2021 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, May 2018
The Params was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with end-of-life wishes still being recorded.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 April 2018. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff, the manager, an owner, relatives and a health and social care professional. The inspector also checked care files, staff files and other records.
The home supported up to 13 people with learning disabilities, sensory impairments and mental health needs. Eleven people were living there on the inspection day. People said they felt safe, and inspectors found enough staff, good risk assessments, safe medicines practice and suitable recruitment checks.
Inspectors found staff knew people well and treated them with kindness and respect. People helped plan their care, meals and activities. The home supported healthcare, independence, community activities and accessible complaints.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It was also rated Good overall. The previous inspection in November 2015 had the same overall and key question ratings.
People felt safe
People described the home as safe and secure. Staff understood safeguarding and how to report concerns.
“People told us they felt safe and saw The Params as their home.” from the report
Kind, respectful relationships
Staff knew people's personalities, needs and abilities well. Inspectors saw patient and positive interactions that respected privacy and dignity.
“We saw frequent and positive interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Choice and independence
People helped plan and prepare meals and had individual activity timetables. They were supported to use the community and develop skills.
“People were supported to access and maintain links with their local community.” from the report
Good oversight
The home used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor the service and identify improvements.
“We saw documented evidence that showed the service had effective audit systems in place and these were kept up to date.” from the report
End-of-life wishes not yet complete
needs fixingWork had started with people, relatives and professionals to record end-of-life wishes, but this had not been completed for everyone at the time of inspection.
“The registered manager told us they were working to complete this for all people.” from the report
- 01Have end-of-life wishes now been discussed and recorded for every person, and how are those wishes kept up to date?
- 02How many staff are normally on duty, and how do you adjust staffing when people's needs change?
- 03How are medicines staff checked as competent, and how often are medicines records and stock audited?
- 04How are people involved in choosing meals, activities and their care plans?
- 05How can a person or relative make a complaint in an accessible format, and how are concerns followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating; the inspector spoke with five people, three staff, three relatives and one health and social care professional, and checked three care files and three staff files. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 May 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 The Params
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 February 2012.
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 Croydon
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. 77 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”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.