CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Parklands Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were identified and managed, medicines were given as prescribed, infection control had improved, staff were safely recruited and staffing levels met people's needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management had improved and understood its responsibilities better, but monitoring systems were not yet consistently effective. Some medicine recording problems remained after they had been identified.
What inspectors found, May 2023
The Parklands Care Home is rated Good overall; inspectors found safe care and improvements, but leadership systems still needed embedding.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 24 April 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found that risks were identified, medicines were given as prescribed, infection control had improved, recruitment checks were completed and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
Well-led remained Requires Improvement. Management had improved, helped by the appointment of a regional manager, but audits still missed some minor problems. Medicine recording issues had been identified but were still present a couple of months later.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. The provider was no longer in breach of regulations, but this inspection only looked at Safe and Well-led. Ratings for the other areas were carried over from the previous inspection.
Risks were managed
Inspectors found that risks linked to people's care had been identified and that staff had instructions to reduce those risks.
“Risks in relation to people's care and support had been identified and actions taken to mitigate risks.” from the report
Enough staff
The home had systems to decide how many staff were needed each day. Inspectors saw enough staff responding to people in a timely way.
“We observed there were enough staff available to respond to people in a timely way.” from the report
Improved infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had improved its arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including the safe use of protective equipment.
“We were assured the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
More positive management
A regional manager had been appointed to support the management team. People and relatives said managers were approachable and had made positive changes.
“Since our last inspection the provider had appointed a regional manager to guide and support the management team.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingPeople received their medicines as prescribed, but inspectors found concerns with the records. Some guidance for medicines given when needed could also have been more informative.
“People received their medicines as prescribed although we found some concerns with the record keeping.” from the report
Checks were not yet consistent
needs fixingThe home's audits had improved, but they still missed some minor issues. Problems with medicine records had been identified but remained several months later.
“These issues had been identified as part of the audit process but were still evident a couple of months later.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicine records, and how do you check that these changes are working?
- 02What information do staff use when giving medicines prescribed to be taken when needed?
- 03How will managers make sure the new audit and monitoring systems are fully embedded?
- 04Who is responsible for the day-to-day running of the home, and how do managers work together?
- 05What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 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, December 2022
Requires Improvement; inspectors found unmanaged risks, infection control problems and weak leadership, with breaches of two regulations.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 6 September 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was not always safe. Care plans did not contain important instructions about risks, prescribed thickener was left in unlocked communal cupboards, and parts of the home needed deep cleaning. Medicines were mostly given as prescribed, but some records were incomplete.
The home was also not well-led. Quality checks had not identified or fixed important problems, care plans were sometimes contradictory, and there was little evidence that people and families had been kept informed or asked for feedback.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published in June 2018, to Requires Improvement. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating.
Protection from abuse
Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to respond to suspected abuse.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Staff had pre-employment checks, and inspectors observed enough staff to meet people's needs during the visit.
“We observed staff interacting with people and found there were enough staff available to meet people's needs.” from the report
Mental capacity safeguards
The home was working within the Mental Capacity Act principles. Where needed, legal authorisations were in place and their conditions were being met.
“We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place” from the report
Risks not clearly managed
seriousCare plans lacked important instructions for safe transfers and falls prevention. Prescribed thickener was stored in unlocked communal cupboards, creating a choking risk.
“Risks relating to the welfare of people were not always effectively managed.” from the report
Infection control and cleanliness
seriousMany areas needed a deep clean, storage made cleaning difficult, and inspectors saw problems with protective clothing and equipment.
“Many areas required a deep clean, storerooms were untidy, and items were stored on the floor making cleaning difficult.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe home's quality monitoring had not identified or dealt with important problems. There was limited evidence of learning from accidents and falls.
“There was a lack of provider oversight which had failed to determine poor standards.” from the report
Limited family involvement
needs fixingInspectors found little evidence that people and families had been involved in the service or kept informed.
“There was limited evidence that people and their families had been involved in the service.” from the report
Incomplete medicines records
needs fixingPeople mainly received medicines as prescribed, but some topical creams were not signed for and some liquid medicines did not have opening dates recorded.
“However, some topical creams were not signed for when administered and some liquid medicines did not record the date they had been opened.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to make sure every care plan contains clear instructions for transfers, falls risks and other safety needs?
- 02What improvements have been made to deep cleaning, storage and staff clothing and footwear since the inspection?
- 03How are you checking that medicines records are complete, including topical creams and the opening dates of liquid medicines?
- 04What action has been taken in response to the warning notice for good governance?
- 05How will relatives be kept informed and asked for feedback about the care provided?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were not inspected and the previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 December 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 Parklands Care Home
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2022Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Insufficient evidence to rate
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 July 2015.
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
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Doncaster
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. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“I can honestly say without Petros I don't believe he would have lived an extra 2 years”
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.