You are here

Archived: Parklands Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 30 June 2017

This inspection took place on 16 and 30 May 2017 and was unannounced. This meant staff and the provider did not know that we would be visiting.

Parklands care home is a large converted Victorian mansion set in its own grounds. It provides up to 36 places for older people and older people with dementia care needs. There is an additional extension which is connected to the original part of the building by a bridge. Two people had chosen to live in this extension. At the time of our inspection there were 22 people using the service.

At the last inspection on 31 March and 1 April 2016 we found improvements were required. The provider had not made arrangements to ensure people received their prescribed topical medicines in a safe manner. Care plan documents which outlined the needs of people who used the service needed to be improved. Also action was needed to ensure the records were accurate and provided contemporaneous information.

We found the service in breach of regulations 12 (Safe care and treatment) and 17 (Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We rated the service as ‘Requires Improvement’ overall and three domains required improvement.

Following our last inspection the provider sent us information, in the form of an action plan, which detailed the action they would take to make improvements at the service.

At this inspection we found that the team had worked collaboratively to ensure all of the previous breaches of regulation were addressed.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like 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 and relatives we spoke with told us they felt the service was safe. Risks to people using the service were assessed and plans put in place to reduce the chances of them occurring.

Safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures were in place to protect people from the types of abuse that can occur in care settings. People’s medicines were managed safely. There were enough staff deployed to keep people safe. The provider’s recruitment processes minimised the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.

Staff received mandatory training in a number of areas, which assisted them to support people effectively, and were supported with regular supervisions and appraisals. People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were protected.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and to access external professionals to monitor and promote their health.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the staff at the service, describing them as kind and caring. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. Staff knew the people they were supporting well, and throughout our inspection we saw staff having friendly and meaningful conversations with people. People were supported to be as independent as possible and had access to advocacy services where needed.

People and their relatives told us staff at the service provided personalised care. Care plans were person centred and regularly reviewed to ensure they reflected people’s current needs and preferences. People were supported to access activities they enjoyed. Procedures were in place to investigate and respond to complaints.

People and staff spoke positively about the registered manager, saying she supported them and included them in the running of the service. The registered manager and provider carried out a number of quality assurance checks to monitor and improve standards at the service.

The registered manager had informed CQC of significant events in a timely way by submitting the required notifications. This meant we could check that appropriate

Inspection areas



Updated 30 June 2017

Staff were knowledgeable in recognising signs of potential abuse and reported any concerns to senior staff.

There were sufficient skilled and experienced staff on duty to meet people�s needs. Robust recruitment procedures were in place.

People�s risks were monitored and managed appropriately with the least restrictive option always considered.

People�s medicines were managed safely and audited regularly.

People lived in a clean and well maintained service with environmental risks managed appropriately.



Updated 30 June 2017

This domain remains good



Updated 30 June 2017

This domain remains good



Updated 30 June 2017

The service was responsive.

People�s needs were assessed and care plans were produced identifying how to meet them.

We saw people were encouraged and supported to take part in a wide range of activities.

The people we spoke with were aware of how to make a complaint or raise a concern.



Updated 30 June 2017

The service was well-led.

People benefitted from a service which had a strong management team. The registered manager was always looking for ways to improve.

The registered manager consistently reviewed the effectiveness of the service.

People�s views were sought and acted upon. Relatives� views were sought.