CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ainsdale Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed, staff numbers were sufficient and systems for safeguarding, medicines and infection control were in place. The home was addressing the timeliness of prescription deliveries.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found improved audits, checks and care plan reviews. They also found clear accountability and an ongoing programme of improvements to the home.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found the home safe and well-led, with improvements since its previous Requires Improvement rating.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 15 March 2023. They spoke with 12 people, eight staff and the nominated individual. They also checked care and medicines records, four staff files and the home’s management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe and spoke positively about staff. Inspectors found suitable checks on risks, the building, equipment, medicines and infection control.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement. Checks on the environment and records had been strengthened. Inspectors also found that care plans, audits and incident reviews were being monitored more closely.
This inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit and were carried forward from the previous inspection.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding information and concerns were reported to outside agencies when needed.
“People told us they felt safe living at the service.” from the report
Staff knew people well
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs and saw that positive relationships had developed.
“People were supported by staff who knew them well and it was evident that positive relationships had been formed.” from the report
Risks and medicines monitored
Risks such as falls, poor nutrition and skin problems were assessed and reviewed. Medicines were given when needed and stocks were checked.
“Identified risks to people's physical and emotional health were assessed and where possible mitigated.” from the report
Management improvements
The home had strengthened its audits, environmental checks and records since the previous inspection. Actions found during checks were followed up.
“Effective quality assurance systems had been developed.” from the report
Prescription delivery timing
minorThe home was still working to improve how promptly prescriptions were delivered. Families should ask how this is monitored for their relative.
“The service was in the process of addressing the timeliness of prescription deliveries for people.” from the report
Provider information was not submitted
minorThe provider did not complete the information return requested before the inspection. This meant inspectors had to rely on other information sources when planning their visit.
“The provider did not complete the required Provider Information Return (PIR).” from the report
- 01What is being done to make sure prescriptions arrive on time?
- 02How do you check that medicines are given and recorded correctly?
- 03What environmental and records checks were introduced after the previous inspection?
- 04How are care plans reviewed and updated when a person’s needs change?
- 05When will the planned decoration and environmental improvements be completed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 April 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.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe and effective care overall, but some environmental checks and records were not reliable enough.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 17 and 25 August 2022. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, family members and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People generally felt safe and spoke positively about staff. Medicines were given when needed, risks were assessed, infection controls were in place, and people had access to food, healthcare and trained staff. The Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
The Safe and Well-led ratings remained Requires Improvement. Inspectors found unsafe storage in communal facilities, repairs that were needed, and gaps in environmental and recruitment records. The provider took immediate action on some issues, but the CQC recommended further improvements.
Medicines
Inspectors found that people received their medicines when they needed them and that stocks and administration records were monitored.
“People received their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Staffing and safeguarding
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Safeguarding procedures were in place and concerns were reported to outside agencies when needed.
“Sufficient numbers of staff were on duty to meet the needs of people.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People had enough food, choices at mealtimes and access to regular GP visits and specialist healthcare referrals.
“People had a choice of foods at each mealtime and if required, an alternative menu was available” from the report
Consent and rights
The home had improved its approach to consent, best-interest decisions and applications for legal authorisation where required.
“Staff followed the principles of the MCA.” from the report
Improvement plan
The new manager had introduced regular checks on people's records and showed a plan for further improvements.
“A new registered manager was in post who demonstrated a clear plan of action to make continual improvements to the service.” from the report
Unsafe communal areas
seriousA shower room and bathroom were being used to store equipment and products. Some items created a risk and blocked safe access, although the provider acted immediately to clear the rooms.
“People's communal living spaces had not always been safe.” from the report
Environmental checks
needs fixingSome bedroom doors needed repair and ceiling tiles were not fitted flush. These were addressed during the inspection, but the CQC recommended stronger monitoring of the environment.
“We recommend the provider consider current guidance and take action to update their practice accordingly in relation monitoring of the environment.” from the report
Incomplete records
needs fixingSome recruitment and maintenance records were not fully completed. For example, hot water checks did not record the temperature or whether it was suitable for individual people.
“Records relating to recruitment and maintenance monitoring were not always completed in full.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingThe home's checks had not identified all the environmental and record-keeping problems found by inspectors.
“Checks and monitoring of the records and people's living environment had failed to identify the areas of improvement identified in this report.” from the report
- 01How are communal rooms checked now to make sure equipment and products are not stored where they could create risks or block access?
- 02How do you record hot water checks, including the temperature and whether it is suitable for each person?
- 03What changes have been made to make sure recruitment records are complete for all staff?
- 04How often are care records and the living environment checked, and who reviews the results?
- 05What progress has been made against the manager's improvement plan since the inspection?
This inspection rated Safe, Effective and Well-led; the report does not give separate ratings for Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 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.
Every inspection of Ainsdale Court
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2023Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 November 2020.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of St. Helens
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.