You are here

Park Grove Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 3 January 2020

About the service

Park Grove is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 26 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 32 people in one adapted building.

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

There were processes in place to protect people from the risk of avoidable harm however, these were not always consistently used. Lessons learnt after an accident or incident were not consistently actioned or recorded. We could not be sure people always received their medicines as prescribed because medicine management practices were not consistently safe. Staff understood how to protect people from abuse or unfair treatment. Staff were not always recruited in a safe way. We made a recommendation about improving quality assurance of recruitment processes. Some staff told us staffing levels were insufficient to meet the needs of people who lived at the service however, the provider acted on our feedback and immediately increased staffing levels. We made a recommendation about gaining people's feedback to ensure staffing levels are sufficient.

People were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; however, the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice.

Staff had received theory-based training however, the provider had not checked their competency and understanding in relation to important subjects such as moving and handling and first aid. Staff told us they felt supported and listened to. People's physical, mental health and social needs were assessed and they were involved in the care planning process. People had access to a wide range of nutritious and good quality food.

People consistently told us they were supported in a kind and caring way. Staff had formed trusting relationships with people they supported.

Staff did not always update people's care plans as their needs changed with person-centred information. People told us staff supported them in a person-centred way and encouraged them to remain independent. Staff encouraged people to maintain relationships with their friends and family. At the time of the inspection the provider was in the process of recruiting an activity worker. Staff were responsive to people’s requests. People had access to the complaints procedure and told us they felt confident to raise any concerns.

Since the last inspection quality assurance systems had improved however were inconsistently used and not always effective. The new manager had been in post for eight weeks and had already identified the shortfalls found at the inspection, they had an ongoing improvement plan. People and staff told us they felt confident in the management team and involved in decisions made about the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 30 November 2018). The service remains rated requires improvement. This is the second time the service has consecutively been rated requires improvement. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection enough improvement had not been made and the provider was still in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.


We have identified breaches in relation to safe care and treatment, governance and consent at this inspection.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will meet with the provider following this report being published to discuss how they will make changes to ensure they improve their rating to at least good. We will work with the local authority to monitor p

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 3 January 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 3 January 2020

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 3 January 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 3 January 2020

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 3 January 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.