Parklands Residential Care Home

Updated 23 March 2022

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of COVID-19, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practice is safe and that services are compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 28 February 2022 and was announced. We gave the service three hours’ notice of the inspection.

Updated 23 March 2022

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 12, 13 and 18 June 2018.

Parklands Residential Care Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Parklands is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to 40 people. The accommodation is located over two floors. On the day of our inspection there were 34 people living in the home.

Parklands has a registered manager. The manager had been registered since March 2018, but had been in post since July 2017. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

This home has not been inspected under the current provider.

We found that care records were not always being updated following any changes or when advice had been given by professionals. Care plans did reflect people’s preferences as well as life history and their needs. We found additional monitoring sheets where people were identified at high risk were not consistently completed. The provider had identified these shortfalls as part of their quality assurance systems and were taking steps to address these.

The registered provider had robust quality assurance systems in place. Shortfalls were identified through these systems and these were being addressed by the registered manager. The registered manager and deputy manager were keen to improve the service and had signed up to several good practice initiatives locally.

There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of the people living in the home and they were recruited safely.

Risks to people were managed safely and risk assessments were in place to provide guidance to staff as to how to manage risk.

Staff had completed safeguarding training and safeguarding incidents were appropriately referred to the local safeguarding team. There was managerial oversight of these incidents so learning on how things may be improved or prevented in the future could be gained.

Medication was being stored and administered safely. Regular medication audits were being conducted and issues identified were being actioned.

Complaints were managed effectively within the home and people and their relatives felt confident that issues that they raised would be addressed.

The provider was acting in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that people were receiving the right level of support with their decision making. People were involved in the care plans and had signed their consent to care where able. Where people lacked capacity, appropriate paperwork was in place to ensure that decisions were made in their best interests.

Staff members confirmed they received regular training and supervision and we verified this in the provider’s records.

We saw regular checks on the property were undertaken and the premises were safe without restricting people’s ability to move about freely. We did receive some negative comments about the décor and we were told that the provider was refurbishing parts of the home in stages.

People had access to various activities within the home and were observed to enjoy these on the days of our inspection.