Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a nursing home, run by Park Homes ()

Allerton Park Care Centre

39-41 Oaks Lane, Allerton, Bradford, BD15 7RT

Goodpublished 31 January 2025, 18 months ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, September 2023

Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious risks in care, medicines, premises and leadership.

Inspectors visited without notice on 11 and 13 July 2023. They spoke with people, a relative and staff, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files and management records.

They found people were at risk because safety checks and repositioning records were often missing or incomplete. Medicines were not always given or recorded safely. The home was run down, sometimes unclean, and had hazards including unsecured decorating materials and unsafe fire doors.

Staffing levels and recruitment were suitable, and accidents and incidents were reviewed. However, the systems used to check the quality of care had not identified or fixed the wider problems. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Inadequate.

What inspectors praised
  • Staffing

    Inspectors found enough staff and said they were deployed safely across the home. Recruitment checks were also completed safely.

    We found deployment within the service was safe, with a good staff presence in all communal areas.from the report
  • Incident reviews

    Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed for patterns and repeated risks.

    Accidents and incidents were well recorded and reviewed regularly by the registered manager who analysed these for trends, patterns, and commonalities.from the report
  • Infection arrangements

    Inspectors were assured about several arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including admissions and responding to infection risks.

    We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.from the report
  • External involvement

    People's records showed involvement from health professionals, including tissue viability nurses, speech and language therapists and GPs.

    People's records showed involvement from Tissue Viability Nurses, Speech and Language Therapists and GP's.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • People at risk

    serious

    Required safety checks and repositioning were often not recorded. Inspectors could not be assured that people consistently received care intended to prevent harm.

    We found large gaps in this documentation, with 1 person on some days only having 1 or 2 repositioning entries documented in a 24-hour period.from the report
  • Unsafe medicines

    serious

    Some doses were missed, medicines were not always given at the correct time, and records did not always show that medicines had been given as prescribed.

    Some people missed doses of their medicines, including a thickening powder which is a high-risk medicine, as it is added to fluids to prevent choking and pain relief.from the report
  • Unsafe premises

    serious

    The home was tired and sometimes unclean. Inspectors found unsecured hazardous materials, uncovered light bulbs, damaged fire doors and other maintenance risks.

    Hazardous materials such as paints, flammable liquids, and tools were stored in these rooms, but they were not locked.from the report
  • Consent and restrictions

    serious

    Some restrictions were used without the required mental capacity assessments or best interest decisions. People, relatives or advocates were not always involved.

    Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not always in place for people who had restrictions.from the report
  • Weak oversight

    serious

    The home's audits and checks did not identify or resolve the problems found by inspectors. This meant risks continued without effective management.

    Provider oversight and monitoring was ineffective in identifying and managing organisational risks.from the report
  • Poor infection practice

    needs fixing

    Staff did not always change protective equipment between interactions, and parts of the home appeared unclean and smelled unpleasant.

    We observed staff failed to change PPE between interactions with people and when providing food and drink.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What has been done to make medicines safe, including the electronic records, missed doses and thickening powders?
  2. 02Which repairs and cleaning issues identified by inspectors have been completed, including the fire doors, uncovered lights and unsecured hazardous materials?
  3. 03How are required safety checks, repositioning and food records now checked for accuracy every day?
  4. 04How are mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions being completed and reviewed, with relatives or advocates involved?
  5. 05What independent checks are now in place to make sure the provider's audits identify and fix risks?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 September 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Allerton Park Care Centre

5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Inadequate rating throughout.

  1. September 2023Inadequatecurrent rating
    Safe: InadequateEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate

    Read what inspectors found at Allerton Park Care Centre

  2. January 2021Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. November 2019Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. March 2017Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. October 2015Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. June 2015Inadequate
    Safe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. September 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. August 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. July 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. March 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. December 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. September 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  13. March 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  14. June 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  15. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 January 2011.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Same provider

Other services run by Park Homes (UK) Limited

11 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

Pemberton Fold

Manchester, M38
Requires improvement
ResidentialDementia
Rated 2 years agoReport explained
Nearby

Other care homes near Bradford

Windsor Court

Bradford, BD15 · 0.4 km
Good
Residential
Rated 7 months agocare home

Roxburgh Lodge

Bradford, BD15 · 0.6 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 3 years agoReport explained

Crossley House

Bradford, BD8 · 0.9 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 8 years agocare home

Cranbourne House

Bradford, BD9 · 1.0 km
Not yet rated
Residential
Not yet ratedReport explained