• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Parklands Court Care Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

56 Park Road, Bloxwich, Walsall, West Midlands, WS3 3ST (01922) 775909

Provided and run by:
Bupa Care Homes (CFHCare) Limited

All Inspections

21 & 22 January 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This unannounced inspection took place on 21and 22 January 2016. Parklands Court is registered to provide accommodation, nursing and personal care for up to163 people. It is split into six different units. Harrison and Collins can accommodate up to 30 people. Marlborough can accommodate up to 24 and Elmore which is a unit off Marlborough can accommodate up to 16 people. Clarendon can accommodate up to 33 and Samuel up to 28 people. All the units have their own separate living and dining areas.

There was a registered manager in place however they were leaving the company and had deregistered as manager with effect from 6 February 2016. A new manager had been recruited and was present on the day of the inspection. 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.

People, their relatives and staff raised concerns about staffing levels on five of the six units. We saw people did not always receive support when they needed it and had to wait for staff to be available to provide support. People did not always receive their medicine in a timely way. Systems were not in place to ensure people received their medicine safely.

People were supported by staff who knew how to keep them safe. When people had identified risks to their health and safety staff knew how to support them and risk assessments were in place for staff to follow. A system was in place to ensure staff were recruited safely.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Where people lacked the capacity to provide consent or make decisions about their care, the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed in some of the units. However improvements needed to be made in assessing people’s capacity when they lacked capacity to consent to their medicine in Clarendon Unit.

People told us they did not always have the choices with regards to their food. People, their relatives and staff told us staff the correct training to meet people’s needs. People had access to healthcare professionals when their health needs changed.

Some people told us they did not always get the care they wanted. People were left for long periods of time with no interaction from staff. We saw people’s privacy and dignity was not always respected by staff. People had choices with regards to their care and staff respected their choices.

People were encouraged to maintain relationships that were important to them.

People did not always have access to leisure opportunities. People were supported by staff who knew their individual preferences. Care records usually reflected people’s care needs. However improvements were needed in some areas to ensure all people involved in their care were aware of people’s up to date care needs.

People and their relatives told us they were comfortable in raising complaints. We saw a system was in place which showed when people complained they were listened to.

There was a management structure in place which meant people received different experiences of care in each of the units. People and their relatives were not always aware of the management structure.

People had opportunities to comment on the care they received. However where issues were highlighted remedial action had not always been taken. A quality assurance system was in place but it was not always effective as it had not highlighted the concerns raised in our inspection. For example the medicine errors we highlighted to the registered manager. Staff felt supported in their role.

5 & 6 November 2014

During a routine inspection

The service is overseen by a registered manager. 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. There are six units at Parklands; each one allocated a unit manager who is supervised by the registered manager.

Parklands Court Nursing Home provides care, with can include nursing for up to 163 people. The people that use the service live in six different units. Harrison and Collins units can accommodate up to 30 people who are mainly elderly. Marlborough unit can accommodate 23 people and Clarendon unit 33 people who have dementia. Elmore is a separate unit linked to Marlborough unit and can provide care for up to 17 people with dementia and behaviour which may challenge the service. Samuel unit can accommodate up to 28 people who have dementia. All the units consisted of ground floor accommodation with single en-suite bedrooms as well as a number of communal living areas.

We inspected Parklands Court Nursing Home on 5 and 6 November 2014. The inspection was unannounced. We previously inspected the service on 7 August 2013 and at this inspection we found the service was meeting all the regulations we inspected them against.

There was not always sufficient staff available across all the units to ensure people received care in a timely way. People sometimes had to wait for staff to assist them with personal care in Samuel unit, while in some units we saw people received care and support when needed.

Staff demonstrated awareness of what could constitute abuse and that matters of abuse should be reported in order to keep people safe. Staff were aware of how to report issues to the provider and to outside agencies so that any allegations of abuse would be responded to.

People were not always protected against the risks associated with safe management of medicines. Medicines were not always available to treat people’s diagnosed health conditions and there were gaps in some people’s medication records.

People told us that they, or their families where this was their choice, were able to have involvement in planning and agreeing the care provided to them. We saw that people had an individual plan, detailing the support they needed and how they wanted this to be provided.

We found that some people’s rights and freedom was restricted. This was not managed in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which help to support the rights of people who lack the capacity to make their own decisions or whose activities had been restricted in some way in order to keep them safe.

Some people and relatives we spoke with were complimentary about the service and its staff, describing them as caring. We saw that the way care was provided was inconsistent with some staff providing care that considered the person foremost, and others providing care that was task and not person focussed.

People’s health and well-being was supported by external healthcare professionals, when required, such as district nurses and doctors.

The provider gathered people’s views in a number of ways, for example through the use of surveys, meetings and face to face discussion. We saw that the provider had a complaints procedure that enabled people to raise concerns and be responded to appropriately.

We saw that people had access to a choice of and sufficient meals and drinks. People were complimentary about the food that was provided to them.

We saw that a number of people had the opportunity to participate in meaningful recreation and occupation but this was not consistent across all the units within the service.

Regular audits were carried out by the registered manager and provider. We saw that some issues identified were been addressed, for example the environment was being refurbished, although there were some areas needing improvement that were not identified, for example gaps in medicine records.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

7 August 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager and staff members in two units. We visited Clarendon and Collins units and spoke with people who lived there.

During the inspection our expert-by-experience spoke with five people who lived at the home and one visiting relative. We also spoke with a health care professional who was visiting on the day.

People we spoke with told us that they were happy with the support they received and were involved in giving feedback about the service.

One person living at the home told us: "The girls are very good. They are excellent. They look after me well".

Everybody we spoke with said that they were happy to be living there and spoke highly of staff.

We completed a tour of the two units and Samuel unit which had recently opened. We found that the provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained

Staff told us they were supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard.

One member of staff told us: 'There is an open door policy here. We get access to training and professional development opportunities and clinical supervision'.

We found that the majority of records we looked at were accurate and fit for purpose. Where there were gaps in recording the provider was responsive to our findings and acted promptly to ensure the issues were addressed.

3 October 2012

During a routine inspection

During our visit we spoke with people living at the home, relatives, the registered manager and staff.

Due to the nature of the needs of people living at Parklands Court Nursing Home, we were not always able to obtain their direct opinions about the home. We used other methods to better understand their opinions to include surveys and conversations with relatives who knew them well.

One relative told us, 'We're really pleased with the home. The staff are really helpful. They are lovely people'.

Staff we spoke with told us they received appropriate training to undertake their work competently and with appropriate support from the management team.

We looked at seven outcomes to assess whether people were involved and participated in the service they received; whether care was provided appropriately; whether the service could adequately ensure people's safety; whether there were sufficient staffing levels and whether correct procedures had been followed in the recruitment of staff and whether there was a system for ensuring ongoing quality assurance within the home.

At the last inspection Parklands Court Nursing Home was found to be non-compliant in two outcomes. We looked at these areas again to assess whether the home had made improvements since the last inspection.

We found that Parkland Court Nursing Home was compliant in all seven key outcomes.

6 April and 6 June 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We were able to see that staff are helpful and take time to find out what people wanted or needed. Staff did not appear to be rushed and gave people help when they needed it. Some relatives told us that they felt that there was not enough staff particularly to help people at mealtimes.

14 December 2010

During an inspection in response to concerns

Initially two people contacted us and raised concerns about the safety of people who live at Parklands Court. They said staffing numbers were not enough and were failing to keep people safe or meet people's needs. They also told us that Parklands Court was heavily reliant on agency nurses.

Relatives told us of their concerns about staff numbers they said:

'There never seems to be enough staff' and

'Its always a difficulty here with staffing, more during meal and toilet times. If my husband wants to go to toilet during meal times he has to wait until mealtime is finished'

Other relatives told us:

'Things are better than they were but there seems to be different faces again, staff come and go. I'm sure they think I'm a nuisance as I tell them when things are not right'.

'I have nothing but praise for Parklands and the care that they give my mother. It's much better than the previous home that she was in.