CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Park Beck
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some risks were not safely managed, including moving and handling, falls, catheter care, distress and pressure damage. Safeguarding concerns had not always been reported promptly, although staffing, recruitment, infection control and most medicines arrangements were satisfactory.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed, staff received training and supervision, and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare. Care plans still needed more information about support for weight loss.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous rating was used for questions not inspected, but it does not state that rating here.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous rating was used for questions not inspected, but it does not state that rating here.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management had started improvements, but quality checks had not found all the problems. Records were incomplete or inconsistent, some records had not been stored securely, and improvements identified previously had not always been completed promptly.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks and records were not always managed safely, although care was often kind and effective.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 18 July 2023. Two inspectors reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, recruitment records, incidents and audits. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and observed care and mealtimes.
The home had enough safely recruited staff. Medicines were generally managed well, people had enough food and drink, and staff supported people's health needs. Inspectors also saw kind and positive interactions between staff and people.
However, some risks were not managed safely. Examples included unsafe moving and handling, missing guidance about catheters and distress, and an air mattress set incorrectly. Some safeguarding concerns had not been reported promptly. Care records were incomplete or contradictory, and audits had not found all these problems.
The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Effective remained Good. The inspection found breaches of regulations about safe care and treatment and good governance.
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff on each shift and appropriate checks before staff started work.
“There were enough staff who had been recruited safely to support people each day.” from the report
Food and drink
People were offered choices and staff understood specialist diets and nutritional needs.
“People were supported to enjoy a variety of food and drink that met their individual choices and nutritional needs.” from the report
Health support
Staff made appropriate referrals to health professionals and recorded professional advice in care plans.
“People were supported to maintain and improve their health needs.” from the report
Kind interactions
Inspectors saw staff engaging positively with people and supporting them at their own pace.
“Staff were engaging and interested in people and how they were.” from the report
Unsafe risk management
seriousSome moving and handling practices and care instructions could have exposed people to injury or inappropriate support. This was linked to a breach of Regulation 12.
“Risks to people's health and safety had not been assessed and action had not been taken to mitigate any such risks.” from the report
Safeguarding reporting
seriousThree allegations of abuse had not been reported to the local safeguarding team. The provider took action after the concerns were identified.
“3 allegations of abuse had not been reported.” from the report
Incomplete care records
seriousSome care plans lacked important information or contained conflicting instructions. This meant people could have received inconsistent or inappropriate care.
“The lack of consistent and accurate records meant people were at risk of receiving care that was inconsistent or inappropriate.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits had not identified all the shortfalls, including missing information in medicines protocols and incorrect air mattress settings. This was linked to a breach of Regulation 17.
“The provider systems did not effectively monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
- 01What has changed in practice to make moving and handling, falls and catheter care safe?
- 02How do you now make sure safeguarding concerns are identified and reported promptly?
- 03How are care plans checked so that they contain complete and consistent instructions, including dietary and weight-loss support?
- 04What checks now confirm that pressure-relieving mattresses are set correctly for each person?
- 05How will you show that the two regulatory breaches have been fully addressed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and the previous ratings for uninspected questions carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 August 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, November 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but some legal notifications and medicine records had not been completed properly.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 26 September 2022. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led after concerns about how an incident had been managed. They reviewed records, care plans, risk assessments, medicines and audits, spoke with people and staff, observed care, and contacted professionals.
Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, regular training and safe medicine systems. The home was clean and tidy. Staff knew people well, managed risks and supported people with kindness, choice and patience. Inspectors found no evidence that people had been harmed because of the concern that prompted the inspection.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. The overall Good rating also includes ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for Effective, Caring and Responsive, because these areas were not inspected this time.
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely. Staff had induction, regular training, supervision and competency checks.
“There were enough staff working at the service to support people safely.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were ordered, stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff giving medicines had been trained and assessed as competent.
“Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and gave them choices and time to make decisions. Inspectors saw a positive and relaxed culture.
“Staff supported people with kindness and patience, giving them choices and allowing them time to make their own decisions.” from the report
Clean and infection-aware
The home was clean and tidy. Inspectors were assured that infection risks, protective equipment and possible outbreaks were being managed.
“The home was clean and tidy throughout.” from the report
Late legal notifications
needs fixingTwo incidents had not been notified to CQC or the local safeguarding team as required. The manager submitted them after the omission was identified.
“During the inspection we identified two incidents where statutory notifications, which are required by law, had not been submitted to CQC or the local safeguarding team.” from the report
As-needed medicine records
needs fixingStaff did not always record whether as-needed medicines had worked. Managers said they would remind staff and improve consistency.
“We found that when PRN medicines had been given staff had not always recorded whether the medicine had been effective.” from the report
Mattress settings
minorInspectors found some confusion about the settings for pressure-relieving air mattresses. They found no negative impact on people and saw staff working with district nurses to resolve it.
“During the inspection we identified some confusion around the settings for pressure relief air mattresses.” from the report
- 01What system do you now use to make sure all statutory notifications are sent to CQC and the local safeguarding team on time?
- 02How do you check that staff record whether as-needed medicines have worked for each person?
- 03How are pressure-relieving air mattress settings checked and recorded for each person who needs one?
- 04How will you keep families informed when an incident affects their relative or leads to changes in care?
- 05Which current ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive are based on the previous inspection rather than this visit?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 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.
Every inspection of The Park Beck
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- August 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2022Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 August 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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.