You are here

Parkview Residential Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 16 March 2019

This announced comprehensive inspection took place on 15 January, 12 and 13 February 2019. When we arrived on the first day, the service had experienced a recent outbreak of influenza. Therefore, we could not continue with the inspection which was cancelled and rescheduled.

Parkview Residential Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Parkview accommodates 22 people in a residential area of Ilfracombe, North Devon. People's bedrooms were on both floors and had en-suite facilities. There was a stair lift giving access to the upper floor.

At the time of the inspection, there were 21 people using the service with one vacancy. One person was on a short stay placement (respite) at the service.

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of this service on 21 and 27 November 2017 and rated the service as ‘requires improvement’ for the second consecutive inspection. At that inspection we found the provider had not met all the regulations. This was because:

• the premises were not always safe,

• risks to people had not always been identified, and

• the systems to monitor and improve the service were not fully established.

At that inspection, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements. They sent us an action plan, telling us what they were doing to meet the relevant requirements and the timescales for the actions to be completed.

At this inspection, we found all the legal requirements had been met and the service had improved to an overall ‘good’ rating.

People felt safe living at Parkview. They described staff as kind, caring and respectful.

The registered manager was passionate and motivated in their work. They worked alongside care staff and promoted an open and visible culture. Staff felt appreciated, valued and listened to. The registered manager led from the front and knew people and their families well. The provider and registered manager had worked together for many years and respected each other’s opinions.

People were cared and supported by enough staff who were suitable for their roles. Staff were safely recruited, trained and supervised in their jobs. They all enjoyed working at Parkview and felt part of a team. Staff showed an understanding of what constituted abuse and what they needed to do if they wanted to raise concerns.

People had assessments undertaken before they came to live at Parkview to ensure their needs could be met. This was except for emergency admissions. Each person had a care plan in place which was comprehensive and detailed. The plans showed each person’s individualised care plan and included any assessments of risk identified. People were cared for and supported well at the end of their lives.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. The registered manager had put in processes required by the Mental Capacity (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the MCA and DoLS. They were aware of how these impacted on their approach and ensured people gave consent before any care was given.

People’s experiences were sought through questionnaires and meetings. When ideas or concerns were raised, the registered manager acted on them. People were able to complain if necessary with all complaints fully investigated.

People received their medicines safely and on time. There were infection control policies and procedures in place, but staff had not always adhered to them. This was addressed by the registered manager and resolved.

People received a balanced and nutritious diet. People’s views were taken into consideration when

Inspection areas



Updated 16 March 2019

The service had improved and was safe.

People lived in a safe environment and were protected from risks.

People felt safe and staff understood what constituted abuse and how to report any concerns.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people�s needs fully.

People were protected by effective staff recruitment and selection processes in place.

People�s medicines were safely managed.



Updated 16 March 2019

The service remained effective.



Updated 16 March 2019

The service remained caring.



Updated 16 March 2019

The service remained responsive.



Updated 16 March 2019

The service had improved and was well led.

The registered manager led the service in an open and inclusive way.

Staff felt valued, supported and listened to.

There were governance systems in place to monitor and improve the service.

People were regularly asked for their views and experienced of the service.