The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Parklands

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Callow Hill Lane, Callow Hill, Redditch, Worcestershire, B97 5PU (01527) 544581

Provided and run by:
Dr Steven Sadhra

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

12 January 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 12 January 2015 and was unannounced. Parklands provides accommodation and personal care for a maximum of 29 people. There were 23 people who lived at the home at the time of our inspection.

There was no registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. The current manager was applying to become registered with us. 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.

At our last inspection in February 2014 the provider was not meeting the essential standards of care and welfare, and the assessing and monitoring of the quality of service provision. Following this inspection the provider sent us an action plan to tell us the improvements they were going to make. During this inspection we found the provider had made some improvements

People were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. The quality of record keeping for medicines was not always good. This increased the risk of medicines not being given as prescribed and people’s health maybe at risk of harm.

People and their relatives said they felt safe and staff treated them well. Relatives told us staff were kind and caring and thoughtful towards people. We observed there was not always enough staff available in one of the communal lounge areas to meet people’s needs.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and report on what we find. The manager understood their role and responsibilities. We found the provider had not consistently followed the principles of the MCA and DoLS when assessing people’s ability to make specific decisions, and so the decision to restrict somebody’s liberty is only made by people who had suitable authority to do so.

Staff we spoke with understood that they had responsibility to take action to protect people from harm. They demonstrated awareness and recognition of abuse and systems were in place to guide them in reporting these.

Staff were knowledgeable about how to manage people’s individual risks, and were able to respond to people’s needs. People were supported by staff with up to date knowledge about providing effective care. We saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect whilst supporting their needs. People’s preferences were taken into account and respected.

People had sufficient food and drink to maintain a healthy diet. People were supported to eat and drink well and had access to health professionals in a timely manner. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were well managed

Relatives knew how to raise complaints and the provider had arrangements in place so that people were listened to and action taken to make any necessary improvements.

The systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service did not always ensure people received personalised care.

The registered manager promoted a positive approach to including people’s views. People and staff were encouraged to be involved in regular meetings to share their thoughts and concerns about the quality of the service

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

18 February 2014

During a themed inspection looking at Dementia Services

There were 26 people living at Parklands when we carried out our inspection. We looked at how care was provided to people with dementia. We asked staff how many people had a diagnosed dementia. The acting manager told us that 15 people had dementia at the time of our inspection.

During our inspection we found that many of the people were not able to tell us about their experiences of living at Parklands. However we were able to speak with four people who used the service and five family members. We also received one comment card where this person gave us their views about the care and treatment provided at Parklands.

We spent time observing the care and treatment people with dementia received. We looked at some people's care records, and spoke with three members of staff, the acting manager and the quality assurance manager.

We found that the majority of people we spoke with were happy with the care that was provided. One person told us: 'I like it here they look after me very well and I feel well cared for and enjoy the company of the staff when they can stop and talk to me. Staff ask me if things are ok and do I need anything.' A relative told us: 'Staff are excellent in providing care for my relative. They provide dignity and respect in how they treat my relative, with compassion too'.

We saw that before people came to live at the home their health and social care needs had been identified. This included information about people's dementia care needs and what their daily routine preferences were.

Throughout the day of our inspection we observed staff worked hard to ensure the personal care and health needs of people were met. However we saw occasions when the care and support delivered to people was insufficient to plan and meet people's identified care needs. We saw that some risks had not been identified therefore staff were not always promoting people's wellbeing.

We saw that health and social care professionals were consulted with and staff worked with other providers. This meant that people had access to other health and social professionals in order to meet their care needs.

We found that the provider did not have suitable systems in place to enable the quality of care to be assessed, monitored and improved.

In this report the name of a registered manger appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activity at the time of the inspection. There name appears because they were still the registered manager on our register at the time having left one week before our inspection.

12 November 2012

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with five people who used the service. We observed how staff interacted with people to support them in making decisions about their lifestyles. We saw that staff respected the decisions that people made. We spoke with a person who said, "Excellent, very caring."

The three care files that we reviewed indicated that arrangements had been made to support people in receiving their health and care needs. We saw recordings that confirmed that staff had actively promoted people's health and well-being. From discussions held with staff we found that people were well supported in leading a varied lifestyle that suited their individual preferences.

People were encouraged and supported to do things for themselves and were given choices. One person told us, "After lunch I go to my room to watch television and do a crossword."

We found that systems were in place to keep people safe. Staff had received training in safeguarding people and knew how to respond to concerns.

We found that there were enough staff allocated to work for each shift so that people's care needs were met. There were systems in place for staff to attend appropriate training courses. Senior staff regularly monitored staff practices to ensure that appropriate care was being provided.

People told us they knew how to make a complaint but that they had not needed to.

8 November 2011

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six people who lived at the home. They told us they liked living there. They said they were able to spend their day doing the things they wanted and choose where they spent their time. In the afternoon we saw staff provided games for people to do and people were offered the choice to join in. Where people chose not to play they remained in the lounge. This provided a sociable atmosphere between staff and people who lived at the home.

People told us that the care staff were polite and looked after them well. They liked the food and choice of meals. We saw that people were offered a choice of two meals at the start of lunch time.

We saw that when some staff spoke to people they used 'terms of endearment' such as 'sweetheart' and 'love'. It was not clear if staff had considered each person's individual preference when doing this. At times during our visit we saw that staff would ask a person a question but not always wait long enough for the person to respond.

At the time of our visit building work was being carried out to improve the front of the property. The registered manager told us that there were also going to be some internal improvements to the size of the lift and to toilets and bathrooms situated at the front of the building.