Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Sense - The National Deafblind and Rubella Association

85 Park Road

85 Park Road, Accrington, BB5 1ST

Requires improvementpublished 21 December 2023, 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
People were generally protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and medicines were mostly administered safely. However, there were concerns about allergy information, as-required medicine instructions, medicine checks and the use of agency staff.
Effective?
Requires improvement
People were not always supported safely with their individual nutritional needs, and records did not give staff enough guidance. Staff training and understanding of mental capacity and unlawful restrictions also had gaps.
Caring?
Good
People were usually treated with dignity, privacy and respect, and were supported to make choices and remain independent. Inspectors also saw limited engagement on some occasions, depending on the staff member.
Responsive?
Requires improvement
Care plans were sometimes inconsistent, incorrect or out of date. Activities and communication were not always meaningful or suited to people's individual needs.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
The home had audits, meetings and partnership working, but its checks had not identified important shortfalls. Inspectors found that management oversight was not robust enough to ensure people received safe, up-to-date and person-centred care.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2023

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but people were at risk because nutrition, records, activities and communication were not always managed safely.

This was an announced inspection of the care home in November 2023. One inspector visited on 6 and 13 November, and inspection activity ended on 16 November. The inspector spoke with relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.

The home supported six people with sensory impairments. Inspectors found that people were usually treated with dignity and respect, and medicines were mostly given safely. However, care records were sometimes out of date, and people did not always receive safe support with their individual eating and drinking needs.

Activities and communication were not consistently suited to people's needs. Staff engagement varied, and inspectors found that monitoring systems had not identified these problems. The home breached rules about person-centred care, nutrition and hydration, and good governance.

The overall rating is Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good, while Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. The previous overall rating was Good in 2017. The provider must send an action plan, and the CQC will monitor progress with the provider and local authority.

What inspectors praised

  • Kind and respectful care

    People were supported with privacy and dignity, and staff encouraged independence and respected people's choices.

    “Staff supported people with their personal care with dignity and privacy and they enabled people to be independent in their day to day lives.” from the report

  • Safeguarding arrangements

    The home had systems for responding to suspected abuse, and staff knew how to raise concerns.

    “Systems had been developed which supported the investigation and actions if abuse was suspected.” from the report

  • Safe medicine administration

    Inspectors observed medicines being given safely, and staff had received medicine training and competency checks. Some medicine records and procedures still needed improvement.

    “We observed medicines being given safely and medicines records signed.” from the report

  • Health professional involvement

    People were supported to access healthcare, and records showed involvement from health and care professionals.

    “People were supported to access health care services and we saw evidence of the involvement of health and care professionals in their care.” from the report

  • Personalised environment

    Bedrooms were personalised, and the home was being refurbished. Staff kept the layout consistent to help people with visual impairments move around safely.

    “People's bedrooms were nicely decorated and personalised.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

  • Nutrition and hydration records

    serious

    The home did not always record how to meet a person's specific nutritional needs or what staff should do if concerns arose. Fluid records did not confirm that drinks had been provided according to assessed needs.

    “People were not always supported to eat and drink safely.” from the report

  • Out-of-date care plans

    serious

    Some care records did not accurately describe people's current needs. This could leave staff without reliable instructions for providing care.

    “Care records were in place and included some good information about people's diverse needs and inclusion. However, guidance in the care plans was sometimes inconsistent, incorrect or out of date.” from the report

  • Limited activities and communication

    serious

    People were not consistently supported with meaningful activities or with communication suited to their sensory needs. Inspectors also observed limited interaction and one instance of undignified support during an activity.

    “The service lacked an engaging atmosphere, with very few interactions noted with either staff or people.” from the report

  • Variable staffing skills

    needs fixing

    Feedback about staffing levels and staff skills was mixed. Agency staff were sometimes used, and inspectors found that the quality of support depended on the staff team on duty.

    “During our observations we noted staffing abilities and skills depended on the member of the staff team.” from the report

  • Weak management checks

    serious

    Audits were being completed, but they had not found the problems identified during the inspection. The home therefore did not have strong enough checks to drive improvement.

    “Audits and monitoring was being undertaken. However, they failed to identify the shortfalls we noted at this inspection” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have been made to care plans so they accurately describe each person's current needs?
  2. 02How do you now record and check each person's food and fluid needs, including specialist advice and what staff should do if there is a concern?
  3. 03What meaningful activities and sensory sessions are available for my relative, and how do you check that they are taking part in activities they enjoy?
  4. 04How do you make sure all staff, including agency staff, understand each person's communication methods and individual care needs?
  5. 05What new checks or audits have been introduced to make sure the problems found by the CQC are identified and corrected?

This was an announced inspection covering all five key questions and both the premises and care provided; visits took place on 6 and 13 November, with inspection activity ending on 16 November. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 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 85 Park Road

3 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. December 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at 85 Park Road →

  2. September 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

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

  3. May 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. January 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. January 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. February 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. November 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 November 2010.

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
Same provider

Other services run by Sense

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

Otterhayes

Ottery St Mary, EX11
Good
Residential
Rated 4 years agocare home

115 Gough Road

Birmingham, B15
Good
Residential
Rated 6 years agocare home

11 Station Road

Birmingham, B38
Requires improvement
Residential
Rated 16 months agocare home
Nearby

Other care homes near Accrington

All in Lancashire

Whalley Road

Accrington, BB5 · 0.9 km
Good
Residential
Rated 8 years agocare home

Henley House

Accrington, BB5 · 1.0 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 16 months agocare home

Wellfield

Accrington, BB5 · 1.0 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 6 years agocare home

Belvedere

Accrington, BB5 · 1.1 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 7 years agocare home