CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Amberley Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff knew how to respond to safeguarding concerns. Risks, medicines, staffing, infection control and accidents were managed through established procedures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The report nevertheless records positive comments about dignity, respect and staff relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The report says people were consulted about activities and events.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff understood their roles, quality checks were in place and the home worked with outside professionals. People, relatives and staff were asked for their views.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, respectful care and effective management, with one flooring hazard fixed during the inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 31 October and 7 November 2023. One inspector spoke with 14 people, 9 staff and 5 family members. They observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found that people felt safe, medicines were managed safely, staffing met people's needs and risks were assessed.
People and families described staff as kind, respectful and approachable. The home involved people in decisions and activities, and had systems to monitor care quality and respond to incidents.
The inspection found one area of flooring that could cause a trip. The manager dealt with it immediately. The other three ratings were not inspected and carried over from the previous inspection, which was also rated Good.
People felt safe
People and family members told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew how to identify and respond to concerns.
“People and their family members told us they felt the service was safe.” from the report
Safe medicines systems
Medicines were stored properly, time-sensitive medicines were planned for and audits were completed.
“Medicines were stored in a safe, clean and tidy environment.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw that staff knew people well and had formed positive relationships.
“People and their family members spoke positively about the support they received from the staff team and said they were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
People's choices included
Staff supported people to make choices and maintain independence. People were consulted about food, activities and events.
“The service demonstrated a clear person-centred approach to delivering care and support to people.” from the report
Open management
The manager monitored incidents and quality, worked with other professionals and addressed improvements found during the inspection.
“The registered manager understood their legal responsibility when things went wrong.” from the report
Flooring trip hazard
minorInspectors found an area of flooring that posed a possible trip risk. It was addressed immediately during the inspection.
“During the inspection we identified an area of flooring that posed a potential tripping hazard. This was addressed immediately by the registered manager.” from the report
- 01What flooring problem was found during the inspection, and how was it repaired?
- 02How do you check the home regularly for other trip hazards?
- 03What were the findings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous inspection?
- 04How will you keep families informed about accidents, incidents or changes in a relative's health?
- 05How are people's views used when planning activities, events and food?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection published on 21 March 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 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.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Amberley Court Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but some care records were not fully up to date.
Inspectors visited on 4 January 2018 without notice and again on 12 January 2018 with notice. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and the registered manager. They checked care records, medicines, staff recruitment files, rotas, the building and mealtimes.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People said they felt safe and were treated kindly. Inspectors found suitable medicines systems, trained staff, clean surroundings, access to health professionals, activities and a complaints process.
The inspectors found that some care plans and risk assessments were incomplete or contained old information. They made a recommendation that information should be reviewed regularly so staff always have current details. The home had improved since the previous inspection in 2016, when medicines management was a breach.
Medicines managed safely
Inspectors found appropriate storage, completed medicines records, trained staff and regular checks. This was an improvement since the previous inspection.
“People were supported to receive their medicines safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported them in a warm and respectful way. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy and offering reassurance when people were anxious.
“Throughout this inspection we observed some good practice and examples of person centred care and support offered by the staff team.” from the report
Good support and activities
People received support from trained staff and could access health professionals. An activities co-ordinator offered activities such as bingo, singing and flower arranging.
“An activities co-ordinator was employed five days a week to offer and promote stimulating activities to people.” from the report
Positive management culture
Inspectors found clear accountability and a positive, open culture. Relatives and staff described the manager as approachable and accessible.
“We found a positive, open culture around the service.” from the report
Care records needed updating
needs fixingSome care plans and risk assessments were incomplete or contained information that was no longer relevant. The inspectors recommended regular review so staff have current information.
“We recommend that information available to staff is kept under review to ensure that staff have access to current up to date information at all times in relation to people care needs and wishes.” from the report
- 01How often will my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed?
- 02How do you make sure old medicines information is removed from care plans?
- 03What dementia training have staff completed, and what further training is planned?
- 04How do you check that care plans are complete and accurately reflect current needs?
- 05How can relatives raise a complaint, and how will they be told what action was taken?
This was an inspection of the overall service and all five CQC question areas, including care, medicines, staffing, the environment, activities, complaints and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 March 2018 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 Amberley Court Care Home
8 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2016Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2015Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 February 2011.
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.