Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a nursing home, run by Rodenvine (Nottingham)

Parker House Nursing Home

6 Albemarle Road, Woodthorpe, Nottingham, NG5 4FE

Goodpublished 7 June 2024, 2 years ago

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

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, January 2024

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with medicines, infection control, the environment and quality checks.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 28 and 29 November 2023. Inspectors reviewed information, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.

The home was not always safe. Inspectors found problems with risk assessments, repositioning, window restrictors, equipment, cleanliness, medicines and staffing at night. The provider took some immediate action during the inspection, including arranging more night staff and seeking specialist medicines training.

The home was also not always well-led. Audits had failed to identify important problems, and some care plans and risk assessments were inaccurate or incomplete. The overall rating changed from Good at the last inspection in 2017 to Requires Improvement.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind staff

    People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors also saw staff responding kindly to people and their relatives.

    The staff are kind and caring, the nursing staff are consistent, there are not many changes.from the report
  • Safeguarding awareness

    Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to raise concerns. People were also supported within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.

    Staff we spoke with knew what to report and who to report safeguarding concerns to.from the report
  • Some medicines given on time

    People who needed time-specific medicines for Parkinson's or epilepsy received them on time according to their prescriptions.

    People who required time specific medicine for the management of Parkinson's and epilepsy received these on time according to the prescription.from the report
  • Open communication

    Relatives said they were told quickly when something went wrong. Staff also worked with other professionals.

    The home is very good with communicating, they always let me know if anything happens, it's very quickly resolved.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Risk management

    serious

    Repositioning was not always recorded as required, and some falls and bed rail assessments were unclear or conflicting. Environmental hazards included unsafe window restrictors, loose equipment and unfixed furniture.

    Risks were not consistently managed or monitored. This placed people at an increased risk of avoidable harm.from the report
  • Medicines

    serious

    Some prescribed thickeners were stored without labels or opening dates, and records for medicines given when needed were missing. Staff had not completed specialist training for syringe-driver medicines.

    Medicines were not always managed safely.from the report
  • Infection control

    serious

    Some areas, mattresses and moving equipment were dirty. Infection-control audits had not identified these problems.

    People were not always protected from the risk of infection as staff were not consistently following safe infection prevention and control practices.from the report
  • Night staffing and recruitment

    needs fixing

    There were not enough staff overnight to ensure everyone could be supported promptly. Some recruitment files lacked references or full employment histories, so suitability was not always assured.

    We found not enough staff were on duty overnight to ensure all people would be supported in a timely manner.from the report
  • Weak quality checks

    serious

    Audits did not identify problems with medicines, the environment or care records. This meant management did not reliably use checks to improve safety and care.

    The provider did not effectively monitor the quality and safety of care to ensure improvements were made.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What has been done to make medicines, including thickeners and syringe-driver medicines, safe and properly recorded?
  2. 02How are you now checking that people are repositioned as required and that falls and bed rail risks are accurately assessed?
  3. 03Have all window restrictors, grab rails, furniture and other environmental hazards been repaired or secured?
  4. 04What changes have been made to night staffing, and how do you check that there are enough suitable staff on every shift?
  5. 05How will you make sure audits identify problems with care records, medicines, infection control and the building before people are put at risk?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the last inspection in 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 January 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 Parker House Nursing Home

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

  1. January 2024Requires improvementcurrent rating
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Parker House Nursing Home

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

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

  3. October 2017Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. August 2016Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. July 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. December 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. May 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. March 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. February 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. March 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. February 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 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.

Nearby

Other care homes near Nottingham

Sandwood Care Home

Nottingham, NG5 · 0.6 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 2 years agocare home

Burlington Villa

Nottingham, NG5 · 0.9 km
Requires improvement
Residential
Rated 2 years agocare home