You are here

Parklands Court Care Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 12 June 2019

About the service: Parklands Court provides accommodation and personal care with nursing for up to 163 older people who may have dementia and nursing needs. The service also offers palliative, rehabilitative and respite care. 103 people lived at the service on the first day of our inspection.

Parklands Court is purpose built and consists of six separate, single storey buildings: Collins, Samuel, Harrison, Marlborough, Elmore and Clarendon. The Clarendon unit was closed at the time our visit.

People’s experience of using this service: There were occasions where we saw there was not always enough staff in some units at lunch times, and this did have some impact on the quality of meal provision. The registered manager took some action to address this during our inspection. People told us they were happy with how they received their medicines. We found some areas where there was scope to make medicines management safer and the registered manager took immediate action during our inspection to address these issues. There was also a need to address some outstanding actions identified by infection control audits within the refurbishment of the service.

People looked comfortable and relaxed with staff and their relatives told us they were safe. Staff told us how they kept people safe and minimised risks.

People were supported by staff who were caring and expressed empathy and compassion towards people who lived at Parklands Court. We saw staff respected people and promoted their privacy, dignity and independence.

People received effective person-centred care and support based on their individual needs and preferences. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and preferences and we staff fostered good relationships with people.

People were supported by care staff who had a range of skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff understood their role, felt confident and well supported. Formal staff supervision had now commenced. People's health was supported as staff worked with other health care providers to ensure their health needs were met.

People were supported to have choices, and the provider’s policies supported this practice. There were some occasions where the provider’s policies were not consistently followed to ensure decisions about people’s care were in their best interests.

People's care plans reflected people’s needs and preferences and staff and the registered manager could explain any recent changes to people’s care. We saw staff responded to people’s needs effectively and their preferences were respected.

People and their representatives knew how to complain. Relatives and staff knew how to identify and respond if people were unhappy with the service. People were able to communicate how they felt to staff, and said staff were approachable and listened to what they had to say. Relatives told us when they had raised concerns these had been addressed appropriately.

Most people, relatives and staff gave a positive picture as to the quality of care people received and said the registered manager and other staff were approachable.

Quality monitoring systems were in place, and the provider had made improvements since our previous inspection, although these improvements still needed to be embedded. The registered manager and provider demonstrated they were responding to findings from the quality monitoring system so that lessons were learnt and outcomes for people improved.

Rating at last inspection: The rating for the service at our last inspection was ‘requires improvement’ (Published on 28 August 2018). This is the second time this service has been rated requires improvement with the current provider.

Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection that was due based on our scheduling targets. We had issued a warning notice to the provider following our previous inspection regarding breaches we identified in respect of governance of the service and we found the provider had ad

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 12 June 2019

The service was not always safe

Details are in our Safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 12 June 2019

The service was not always effective

Details are in our Effective findings below.



Updated 12 June 2019

The service was caring

Details are in our Caring findings below.



Updated 12 June 2019

The service was responsive

Details are in our Responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 12 June 2019

The service was not always well-led

Details are in our Well - led findings below.