Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Pridell Care

Care at Parkside

6-8 Edward Street, Oldham, OL9 7QW

Requires improvementpublished 22 February 2024, 2 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Medicines records and some risk information were not always accurate. Staffing, recruitment, equipment checks and infection control were satisfactory, but action was not taken promptly when bathroom water temperatures were too high.
Effective?
Good
This key question was not looked at during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating, but that rating is not given in this report.
Caring?
Good
This key question was not looked at during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating, but that rating is not given in this report.
Responsive?
Good
The home knew people's preferences and communication needs, supported activities and helped people keep in touch with family and friends. Recording of activities had improved since the previous inspection.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
The home used regular audits, but these did not reliably identify or correct medicines and safety problems. Management had recently changed, with the owner applying to become the registered manager.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2024

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but continuing problems with medicines records and service oversight.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 3 and 6 August 2021. An inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with five relatives, the manager and staff. They reviewed care records, all medication records, staff files, audits and other records.

The home had enough staff, followed good infection control practices and supported people with activities, communication and family contact. Care plans described people's preferences well. Relatives were mostly positive about the care and staff.

Inspectors found medicines records were not always accurate or complete. Audits had not identified or fixed some problems, including high bathroom water temperatures. The water problem was fixed after the inspection, and some medicines documentation was improved immediately afterwards. The home remained in breach of Regulation 17 and received a warning notice.

What inspectors praised

  • Staffing and safeguarding

    Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff understood how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns, and recruitment checks had been completed.

    “There were enough staff to meet people's needs and support them appropriately.” from the report

  • Personalised support

    Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes and preferred support. Staff knew people well and respected their choices.

    “People had care plans which contained detailed descriptions of how they liked staff to support them.” from the report

  • Activities and relationships

    People were supported to join activities and keep in contact with relatives and friends. Recording of participation had improved.

    “Staff helped people participate in activities within the home, such as board games, craft sessions and celebrations of events, such as birthdays.” from the report

  • Infection control

    Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable infection prevention arrangements, including safe use of protective equipment and premises hygiene.

    “We were assured that the provider was using personal protective equipment (PPE) effectively and safely.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

  • Medicines records

    serious

    Guidance for medicines given when needed was missing in some cases. Creams, thickened drinks and medicine stock records were not always documented accurately.

    “One person had been prescribed a potent steroid cream to be applied for two weeks only. However, staff had continued to apply this cream for a further week without discussing this with the person's doctor.” from the report

  • Weak checks and oversight

    serious

    Regular audits did not reliably identify problems or make sure action was taken. This was a continuing breach of Regulation 17.

    “However, the shortfalls we identified at this inspection had not been picked up by these audits.” from the report

  • Water temperature checks

    needs fixing

    Checks showed that bathroom water was sometimes hotter than the recommended maximum, but no action was taken before the inspection. The manager fixed this immediately afterwards.

    “Weekly checks on the water temperatures in the downstairs shower and bathrooms had shown that the water was sometimes hotter than the recommended maximum temperature. However, no action had been taken.” from the report

  • Communication with relatives

    minor

    Most relatives said they were kept informed, but one relative felt communication from the home was poor.

    “Most relatives told us they were kept informed about their loved one's health. However, one person felt communication from the home was poor.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have been made to medicines records for as-needed medicines, creams, thickened drinks and medicine stock?
  2. 02How do you now check that medicines audits identify problems and that action is completed?
  3. 03What checks are now in place to keep bathroom water temperatures within safe limits?
  4. 04Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and has the application to become the registered manager been completed?
  5. 05How will you keep relatives informed about changes in their loved one's health and care?

This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led, with the previous ratings for Effective and Caring carried forward because they were not looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 February 2024 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 Care at Parkside

6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.

  1. February 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Care at Parkside →

  2. September 2022Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

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

  3. October 2020Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. July 2019Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. December 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. March 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. October 2016Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. August 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. May 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. June 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 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.

About live-in careHow PrimeCarers works
Nearby

Other care homes near Oldham

All in Oldham

Chamber Mount

Oldham, OL8 · 1.1 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 7 years agocare home