CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Bebington Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicines were not always available, given at the prescribed dose or recorded correctly. Risks in people's care were not always assessed, monitored or managed.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Staff had induction, training and supervision, and people could access healthcare. However, some long-term care plans had not been completed and some nutritional information conflicted.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed kind, patient and respectful care. People and relatives spoke positively about staff, although people's wishes were not always documented properly.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Activities, complaints handling and end of life support were in place. Care plans did not consistently record people's needs, preferences or the correct guidance for staff.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The new manager had introduced improved systems and was receptive to feedback. However, audits did not identify medicines and record-keeping problems, and governance arrangements were not robust.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and improvements under new management, but serious medicines, risk and record-keeping problems remained.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 and 8 September 2022. Inspectors reviewed care and medicines records, management documents and recruitment files. They spoke with 13 staff and the home manager, and gathered views from people, relatives and other sources.
The home was caring in its approach. People were treated with kindness, dignity and patience. Staff received training and support, staffing appeared sufficient on the inspection days, and people had access to food, healthcare and activities.
However, medicines were not always given or recorded safely. Risks were not always assessed or managed, and care records did not always show what support people had received. Quality checks had failed to find these problems. The provider took immediate action to reduce risks and was asked to provide an action plan.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were also Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good. The overall rating and all five key question ratings were unchanged from the previous inspection under the former provider.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff supporting people patiently and responsively. People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and caring.
“The manager and staff were considerate, kind and responsive in their actions and spoke about people warmly and knowledgably.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had completed the provider's required training. New staff received an induction, and records showed supervision and support were being provided.
“New staff completed an induction before starting work. This ensured care staff had the fundamental skills and knowledge expected within a care environment.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Recruitment files contained the required information and criminal background checks had been completed. Inspectors saw what appeared to be enough staff on duty during the visit.
“During the inspection we saw there appeared to be an appropriate number of staff on duty.” from the report
Activities and food
People had opportunities to join activities or choose not to take part. The home had improved its menus, and people said snacks and drinks were available.
“The new provider and manager had made changes to the activities arrangements to ensure they were suited to the needs of the people living in the home.” from the report
Medicines were not safe
seriousSome medicines were given at the wrong dose or were unavailable. Records did not always match the medicines given, creating a risk of harm.
“One person's insulin for their diabetes was not always given at the prescribed dose.” from the report
Risks and care records
seriousHealth risks were not always assessed with clear guidance for staff. Daily records did not always show that required care, such as fluid monitoring, had been provided.
“People's daily records did not always show they had received the care they needed.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's audits did not find the medicines and record-keeping problems identified by inspectors. Governance and record keeping were not sufficiently reliable.
“The governance arrangements in place were not robust and record keeping was not always adequately maintained.” from the report
Care plans were incomplete
needs fixingCare plans did not consistently record people's preferences, needs or the right support guidance. Some plans did not match risk assessments.
“Care plans had not consistently been completed to identify people's needs, likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to ensure medicines, including insulin and medicines that were previously unavailable, are now given exactly as prescribed?
- 02How are you checking that medicine records match the doses given and that creams, allergies and 'when required' medicines are recorded correctly?
- 03How are each person's health risks, fluid needs and emergency evacuation arrangements assessed and kept up to date?
- 04When was my relative's care plan last reviewed, and does it include their preferences, communication needs and specific care guidance?
- 05How are the warning notice and the Regulation 17 governance breach being addressed, and what evidence can you show of improvement?
This was an unannounced full inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 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 Bebington Care Home
7 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- February 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 November 2021.
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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Wirral
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 £1,230 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“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.”
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.