CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Boscobel
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infection, using PPE safely, testing people and staff, and managing possible outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess or rate this question.
- Caring?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess or rate this question.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess or rate this question.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess or rate this question.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements and no specific safety concerns during this focused visit.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 24 February 2022. Inspectors gave the home one day's notice. They checked infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 response, and asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors found systems for visitor testing, vaccination checks, temperature checks and health questionnaires. The home supported visits in line with government guidance and offered a designated visiting area, garden visits and virtual visits when needed.
The home was clean and well maintained. Inspectors found suitable PPE, regular testing, staff training and detailed infection risk assessments. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a full rating of the care provided.
Visitor infection checks
Visitors had to go through checks including testing, vaccination evidence, temperature checks and a health questionnaire.
“A 'booking in' procedure was in place for visitors to the home including, evidence of a negative lateral flow test, COVID-19 vaccination, temperature taken and a health questionnaire.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean, hygienic and well maintained. Cleaning schedules and audits were also in place.
“The home was clean, hygienic and well maintained, having recently undergone refurbishment.” from the report
PPE and staff training
Staff had training in using PPE, and the home had suitable supplies and reminders near PPE stations.
“Staff were trained in how to put on and take off PPE.” from the report
Risk assessment
Detailed risk assessments covered both people living in the home and staff, to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“Individualised and detailed risk assessments for both people and staff were used to help minimise risk of infection transmission.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are staffing pressures being managed now, and what effect do they have on people's care?
- 02What infection prevention arrangements are currently used for visitors and visiting professionals?
- 03How are people's individual infection risks assessed and reviewed?
- 04How are visits currently supported, including visits in the garden or by video?
- 05How are staff trained and checked in the safe use of PPE?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 2022 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, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 24 November 2020. It looked at infection prevention and control because of the response to coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors found that the home was preventing visitors from spreading infections, following shielding and social distancing rules, and supporting safe admissions. They were also assured that testing, hygiene, outbreak management and the infection control policy were in place.
The home used separate meal sittings, helped people keep in touch with family through social media, and made adjustments for people and staff at greater risk from COVID-19.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated judgement for the five areas of care.
Safer mealtimes
The home used multiple meal sittings to support social distancing.
“Social distancing was promoted by the development of multiple sittings at meal times.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to use social media to stay in contact with their families.
“The home supported people to make effective use of social media to maintain family contact.” from the report
Support for higher-risk people
The home made changes to support residents and staff who were at greater risk from COVID-19.
“Adjustments were made to support residents and staff who were at greater risk from COVID-19.” from the report
Infection controls
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering visitors, testing, hygiene, admissions and outbreak management.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Further development identified
minorCQC signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not give further detail about what needed development.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection prevention resources did CQC signpost you to, and what changes have you made since the inspection?
- 02How do you currently manage visitors to prevent infections spreading?
- 03How do you arrange meals and communal activities when social distancing is needed?
- 04How do you provide testing and manage a suspected or confirmed infection outbreak?
- 05How do you safely admit new residents and support people who are at greater risk from COVID-19?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 December 2020 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 Boscobel
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 March 2018.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Sefton
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 £1,270 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 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.