You are here

Park House Residential Home Inadequate

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 1 February 2020

About the service

Park House residential care home is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal care for older people and people living with dementia. The home can accommodate up to 20 people in one building over two floors. At the time of this inspection there were 15 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People and their relatives were generally happy with the care and support they received. However, the combination of inconsistent leadership and ineffective systems which measured the quality and safety of services provided put people at risk. The provider was open about the difficulties the service faced before we came to inspect and recognised the service needed to make significant improvements. During and after the inspection the provider showed they were committed to addressing our concerns and sent a list to the CQC of actions they had planned to take.

Medication systems were in place however, these were not always followed. Risks associated with people’s care and support had been identified, however, from records and observations staff were not supporting people in line with their assessments. Therefore, risks were not managed safely. Staff had not had safeguarding training and were not aware of the action they needed to take to protect people from abuse. We identified safeguarding concerns had not been reported appropriately.

People told us they felt safe in the company of staff. However, practices which promoted people's safety were not always followed. For example, staff were not always safely recruited and appropriately supported by the management team to carry out the duties they were employed to perform.

People's needs were not always identified through a robust assessment of needs and care plans lacked detail, which meant staff did not have access to clear information about how to support people safely and meet their needs. People's health and safety risks were not consistently being identified by the service and measures to reduce such risks were not explored or implemented. People's care plans were not being regularly reviewed to ensure they reflected their changing needs. The care plans we saw did not contain advice from health care professionals to ensure people’s needs were met.

When staff engaged with people they were mostly kind and caring. However, we observed some staff did not engage when providing support and were task focused. Care was not always planned in a way that promoted people’s independence. On the days of our inspection we saw limited activities taking place. We found the home was clean and mostly odour free. Bedrooms had been personalised and communal areas were comfortably furnished. However, some areas of the service were not adapted to meet the needs of people living with dementia.

We have made a recommendation that the service considers current best practice guidance on dementia friendly environments.

Care plans were not person centred and lacked information about people’s wishes, preferences and choices. End of life care plans were very sparse and did not contain people’s preferences. From the care plans we looked at it was not possible to see if people were involved in their care planning. Staff we spoke with understood people’s needs however, did not always follow care plans to ensure they respected their choices. People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice.

Staff had not had the necessary supervision, appraisal and training as is necessary for their role. The provider had a range of audits in place to monitor the service delivery however these were not effective. Action was needed in response to the July 2018 fire risk assessment as issues identified had not been followed up. These actions were c

Inspection areas



Updated 1 February 2020

The service was not safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 1 February 2020

The service was not effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 1 February 2020

The service was not always caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 1 February 2020

The service was not responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 1 February 2020

The service was not well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.