Parkhill Care Home

This report from the Care Quality Commission (CQC) provides an overview of the findings following an inspection of Parkhill Nursing Home. The inspection assessed how safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well-led the service is. While improvements have been made to the building, the report highlights several areas where the home needs to focus to ensure consistent quality of care for its residents. The findings are intended to help families understand the current state of the home and guide their decision-making process.

Regarding safety, the home did not always have sufficient trained staff available to meet residents' needs in a timely manner. Some health and safety risks, including accident management and recruitment processes, were not consistently well-handled, potentially putting residents at risk. While improvements have been made to building safety and infection control, further attention is needed in these areas, particularly concerning medication records and staff training in safeguarding.

In terms of how effective the care is, staff training in essential areas like safeguarding and the Mental Capacity Act was found to be lacking. Although new staff receive a thorough induction, mandatory training was not always completed by existing staff. While residents' nutritional needs are met and they are supported to access healthcare, improvements are needed in ensuring accurate and up-to-date care records for staff guidance and in aligning with Mental Capacity Act requirements.

On the aspect of caring, residents' dignity was not always consistently respected. Some staff interactions were observed as task-focused rather than person-centered, and residents did not always feel their voices were heard, particularly concerning their preferences for mealtimes and locations. While some staff members are clearly known and liked by residents, there are instances where staff did not know residents well enough, leading to distress. Feedback from residents and relatives was mixed, with some describing staff as caring, while others noted concerns.

Concerning how responsive the service is, care records sometimes lacked the specific information needed to guide staff on safe care practices, especially regarding transfers and risk management. While an activities coordinator has been appointed, there was limited evidence of a structured activities program, and staff reported having insufficient time to dedicate to social stimulation. Improvements are recommended to ensure all care records are accurate and that a person-centred activity plan is developed.

Finally, in terms of how well-led the service is, while a new manager is in post and staff, residents, and relatives spoke highly of them, there were governance issues. Audits were in place but did not always identify risks effectively, and there was limited evidence of lessons being learned from incidents. Staffing levels and recruitment processes require further robust implementation to ensure suitability and safety. Although improvements are underway, particularly in relation to staffing and management oversight, these areas need continued focus.