You are here

Archived: Parklands Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 21, 25 May 2012
Date of Publication: 21 June 2012
Inspection Report published 21 June 2012 PDF

There should be enough members of staff to keep people safe and meet their health and welfare needs (outcome 13)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are safe and their health and welfare needs are met by sufficient numbers of appropriate staff.

How this check was done

Our judgement

Overall Parklands was meeting this essential standard. There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

User experience

People who lived at the home were spoken with, they said,

“They have a chat and a bit of a laugh and they take me out if they have time.”

“They’re always busy but it has been better since more staff have been put on.”

Other evidence

At our last inspection in December 2011, we found the provider was not compliant with this essential standard. This was because we found that there was not enough staff at the home to meet the needs of people who lived there.

In response the provider sent us an action plan showing how they were going to make improvements for people. They said that more staff would be recruited so that an extra care staff would be employed during the day and overnight.

On this inspection visit we looked again at what was done at the home to make sure that people were safe by having sufficient staff to support them.

We spent time from 10am to 4pm in each part of the home and found that there were enough staff available to meet peoples’ needs at that time.

The acting manager told us that since the last inspection she had increased the staff at the home by one extra person per shift during the day and night.

We looked at how many staff were working on the day of our visit and found that there were nine staff including two activity co-ordinators divided between both parts of the home. We did not find any instances where people had to wait for unacceptable periods of time before they received assistance from staff. Nor did we find that peoples’ needs were overlooked or they were left at risk without staff being present to support them.

We checked the staff rota to see the shifts that staff had worked and those that were being planned all confirmed that five staff were working at the home during the night and between seven and ten staff were working during the day (including trainees and activities co-ordinators). We talked to the acting manager who confirmed that additional staff had been recruited to work at the home.