- Care home
Parkgate Manor
Assessment report published 29 September 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
This assessment was carried out between the 24 June to 15 July 2025. The service was previously rated requires improvement with 3 breaches of legal regulations in December 2022. This assessment was undertaken to follow up on whether these breaches had been met.The service is a residential care home providing support to autistic people and people with a learning disability. The service is registered to accommodate up to 40 people. At the time of our assessment there were 24 people living at the service.
At the last assessment, the provider was in breach of legal regulations in relation to people’s health appointments and some staff practices were institutional. Improvements were found during this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations. However, whilst improvements were made in relation to care planning, further oversight is needed to ensure records are continually reviewed and updated as needed.
The provider had also previously been in breach of the legal regulation in relation to concerns identified around some quality assurance processes, a lack of audits in relation to care plans, seeking feedback from people, relatives and staff, supervision of staff and compliance for right support, right care, right culture guidance. The provider has been continuously in breach of regulation in respect of governance since August 2021. Whilst some improvements were made, these were not sustained, and the provider remained in breach of this regulation. In addition, we found further shortfalls in relation to infection prevention and control, management of medicines, cleaning schedules and health and safety checks that indicated there was not effective oversight of these areas. The manager confirmed in writing and provided evidence of the actions taken to address the shortfalls. Progress made now needs to be sustained and embedded.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ (RSRCRC) guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Whilst we found staff were caring, offered people choices, and treated people with dignity, the systems in place did not demonstrate that people’s voice was always heard and acted upon.
The model of care was not in line with current best practice guidance, RSRCRC. The service is larger than best practice guidelines. This was because the service was operating before the guidance was released. The provider was aware of this and although progress was being made to improve outcomes to meet the principles of RSRCRC, further work was needed to demonstrate more clearly how this was being achieved and would be developed further.
There had been no registered manager for 14 months. The managing director had previously been the registered manager and knew people, staff and the service well. (They are referred to throughout this report as the manager.) There had been inconsistent leadership due to a turnover of registered managers. This meant quality assurance and monitoring systems had not been sustained.
We observed that the service provided kind and compassionate care, and staff knew people and their needs well. The provider worked in partnership with external health and social care professionals to ensure good outcomes for people. Professionals spoke highly of staff at Parkgate Manor. Although staff had not received formal supervision, they spoke positively about working at the service and felt well supported.
There were good training opportunities available to staff. All staff had opportunities to attend face to face specialist training to meet the needs of people living at Parkgate Manor. Management at Parkgate Manor knew the service, people, and staff well.
People's experience of this service
People had not always had an opportunity to give feedback about their goals and aspirations. They and their relatives had not always been asked to share their views on the care provided or any improvements the service could make. We received mixed feedback from relatives about communication from the service. Although relatives told us they were contacted when there were changes to people’s health needs, they felt communication around people’s wellbeing and activities could be improved.
We observed some activities offered to people that were not relevant to their needs. Relatives gave us mixed feedback about activities. A relative said, “When I visit, it is the same few people sat in chairs with little staff interaction.” Other relatives told us people had opportunities for activities and outings in the community. The provider showed us photographs of outings some people had been on such as visiting parks and going on a train to visit another town. They told us the number of outings people that were offered had increased. They recognised that record keeping in relation to demonstrating person centred involvement was not currently in place.
Whilst we were not able to get detailed feedback from people, we observed interactions between people and staff. People appeared at ease with staff. When people showed signs of distress, we observed staff treating them with kindness, dignity, and respect. People had choice over their routines and what they wanted to eat and drink. People had access to health and social care services when they needed it. Professionals told us staff treated people in a ‘kind manner’ and ‘knew people well.’ Relatives told us they felt people were ‘happy there’ and generally ‘well looked after.’