Carlisle Dementia Centre - Parkfield

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

The provider did not always have robust systems and processes in place to fully monitor the services provided. The provider acknowledged some improvements were required and confirmed they planned to update their governance procedures in light of our feedback. People were positive about the management team and said they were visible within the home.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Governance and quality assurance processes and procedures had not always been utilised fully, particularly those produced by the providers electronic IT system. We discussed this with the management team, and they acknowledged they would update quality assurance checks and audits in line with our feedback.

Care records needed some review to ensure they were up to date and relevant. Some care records were recorded twice, both manually and electronically. This led to duplication of work and meant it was difficult to fully monitor. Duty of candour had not been followed in one recent incident. One of the registered managers was extremely apologetic to the family and discussions took place with the management team to ensure this did not occur again. Further training was required on the use of the IT system in use to ensure staff used to the full, including care planning and governance reports. People received the food and fluids they should, to maintain their nutrition and hydration levels. However, this was not always well recorded. People received their food cold on two units. After feedback, the provider addressed this, including buying individual warming devices for staff to use with each person’s meal. Activities were in place but needed more work and staff to tailor them to meet individual needs. Currently staff fitted activities around their care work. This proved difficult. During the inspection it was agreed that another staff member would take on the role of activity coordinator as an additional part of their role and dedicated hours attached. The providers website had the name of the previous registered manager from over 2 years ago. The website was taken down after discussion, until this was rectified. Memory boxes were not utilised to their full potential. After feedback, some were filled with personalised items, but others were yet to be addressed. Memory boxes are aids outside of people’s bedrooms to help them remember where they were located and to help recall personal histories. Statutory notifications required by law, had been sent to us to keep us informed of specific incidents occurring at the service. There was some confusion over notifiable events, and this was discussed and addressed during the assessment.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.