You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 17 August 2018

The first day of this inspection took place on 10 July 2018 and was unannounced. This meant the provider did not know we were coming. We also visited the home on 13 July 2018 to finalise our inspection.

Parklands is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Parklands accommodated 36 people at the time of the inspection. It provides up to 42 places for older people and older people living with dementia.

The service was registered on 30 September 2017 and has not previously received a rating.

There was a registered manager at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered 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.

Where risks were identified to people who used the service or to the environment these were assessed and plans put in place to reduce them.

People received their medicines safely and were supported to access the support of health care professionals when needed.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff understood how to identify and

report it.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and people told us they felt safe because staff were available to help them. Staff had been recruited in a safe way and checks made to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staff told us they received training to be able to carry out their role. We saw that some training, such as in privacy and dignity, was due to be updated. The registered manager monitored this and had planned the training updates required so that staff continued to have the necessary knowledge and skills.

Staff received effective supervision and an annual appraisal. They told us they found the registered manager very supportive and that they were given the daily supervision they needed to do their jobs effectively.

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 supported this practice.

People received a varied and nutritional diet that met their preferences and dietary needs. The service provided homemade food and drinks which were adapted for different diets.

The interactions between people and staff showed that staff knew the people well.

Care was planned and delivered in a way that responded to people’s assessed needs. Care plans contained detailed information about people’s personal preferences and wishes as well as their life histories. However, we found the care plan for one person receiving short-term care was not reflective of the person’s current needs. When we raised this with the registered manager, immediate steps were taken to ensure this was updated. All the other plans we reviewed were current and detailed.

The management team were approachable and they and the staff team worked in collaboration with external agencies to provide good outcomes for people. People, relatives and staff felt any concerns would be taken seriously and acted on.

Processes were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided and drive improvement. This included in relation to incidents, accidents and complaints.

Areas of the home had been adapted to better meet the needs of people living with dementia based on good practice principles. Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection areas



Updated 17 August 2018

The service was safe.

Staff were recruited safety and there were appropriate levels of staffing to keep people safe.

We found that there were safe processes in place to ensure people received the right medicines at the right times.

Checks and processes were in place to ensure the environment was kept safe and clean. This included monitoring incidents and accidents and learning from these.



Updated 17 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were supervised, appraised and had training to undertake their roles effectively.

People were asked for their consent to care and were assessed and supported appropriately when they were not able to give consent.

People received the support they needed with eating and drinking by staff who were trained in the support of people with nutritional needs.



Updated 17 August 2018

The service was caring.

Everyone one we spoke with told us the service was caring. Relatives told us people were treated with dignity and respect.

We observed positive interactions between people and staff that promoted people�s privacy, dignity and independence. We saw documentation to support these caring practices.



Updated 17 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People, relatives and staff told us that the service was responsive to people�s needs. Staff responded to people�s health and wellbeing needs.

We found that there were very few complaints about the service but where these occurred actions were taken to respond to the complainant and to make improvements to the service.



Updated 17 August 2018

The service was well led.

We found that people, relatives and staff had confidence in the management of the service, they told us that any concerns or issues were addressed.

We saw that systems were in place to monitor the quality and effective running of the service.