CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Dale Park
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff during their visits, safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments and effective infection control. The provider still reported challenges recruiting permanent nurses and care staff.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's care records were personalised and up to date. Staff training and supervision had improved, although there had been delays arranging end-of-life and autism and learning disability training.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's preferences, supported their independence and involved people and relatives in decisions about care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and staff responded promptly when people needed help. Inspectors found little evidence of planned, quality activities, although the provider said it would allocate staff and resources to improve this.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management oversight, audits, staff meetings and learning systems had improved. People, relatives and staff described the management as approachable and said the home was operating better.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safer, kinder and better-organised care, but activities were still limited.
Inspectors visited on 14 and 16 February 2023. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They observed care, checked the building and reviewed care, medicines, staff and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff during their visits, safe medicines practice, complete care records and prompt responses to changes in people's needs. People and relatives generally described kind care and improvements in the home.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in January 2022. The earlier breaches relating to staffing and governance had been resolved, and the home was no longer in breach. However, inspectors found little evidence of planned, quality activities, and the provider said it would put more resources into activities and wellbeing.
Improved management
Inspectors found that changes to the management structure had helped improve care and standards. Staff said managers were approachable and supportive.
“Changes to the management structure within the service had been instrumental in the improvements found during our inspection.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People appeared happy and relaxed. Staff respected privacy, offered choices and supported people to remain as independent as possible.
“We observed staff knocking on people's bedroom doors and checking if it was alright to come in” from the report
Care records and risk management
Records were complete, personalised and kept up to date. Risks, accidents and incidents were reviewed, with actions taken to help keep people safe.
“Detailed risk assessments were included in people's care records and kept up to date.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
People received medicines as prescribed. Nurses had regular checks of their medicines practice, and guidance for medicines given when needed had improved.
“Medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Improved staffing and support
Extra staff had been added, including auxiliary staff. Inspectors found staff available during their visits and said care was more person-centred.
“Extra staffing had been put in place since our last inspection, so people's needs were met in a more person-centred way.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingThere was still little evidence of planned, good-quality activities. The activity coordinator was away, and the provider said it would allocate staff daily to lead activities.
“There was still little evidence of planned, quality activities.” from the report
Recruitment pressures
needs fixingThe provider was still trying to recruit permanent nurses, a deputy manager and more care staff. Inspectors found enough staff during their visits, but families gave mixed views about staffing levels.
“The provider did acknowledge ongoing challenges with recruiting permanent nurses and care staff.” from the report
Some training delays
minorThere had been delays arranging end-of-life training and mandatory autism and learning disability training. The provider said arrangements had been made or an alternative had been sourced.
“There had been delays securing end of life training and the now mandatory autism and learning disability training.” from the report
- 01What planned activities are now available each day, and how are they matched to my relative's interests and abilities?
- 02Have the permanent nurse, deputy manager and care staff vacancies been filled?
- 03How will you make sure end-of-life and autism and learning disability training is completed by the relevant staff?
- 04How will you keep me informed about changes in my relative's care and give me a copy of the complaints policy?
- 05How often will you review my relative's care plan, risks, medicines and changing health needs?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, and the ratings changed from Requires Improvement to Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 March 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, January 2022
Rated Requires Improvement, with inadequate leadership and concerns about staffing, records and personalised care.
This was an unannounced inspection on 30 November 2021, with follow-up calls to relatives on 1 December. Inspectors spoke with relatives, staff and managers, observed care, and checked care, medicine, training, quality and building records.
The home had become less consistent since its previous Good rating in July 2021. Inspectors found shortages of regular staff, heavy use of agency staff, changing managers and weak oversight. People were left without enough monitoring or social contact, and some personal care and meals were less individualised.
There were also problems with care records, complaints records, care plan reviews and checks on the building. The heating was faulty during the inspection, although managers arranged repairs that day. The home was clean, medicines were generally given correctly, and regular staff were described as caring.
The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Requires Improvement. Well-led was rated Inadequate, meaning inspectors found widespread and significant problems with leadership and management.
Kind regular staff
Relatives described regular staff as caring and respectful. Inspectors also saw that regular staff had a positive regard for the people they supported.
“Regular staff spoken with displayed a genuine positive regard for the people they cared for and expressed frustration at the current limitations in the care they were able to provide.” from the report
Clean accommodation
The home was clean and free from unpleasant smells. Routine cleaning was taking place.
“Routine cleaning was carried out and people's accommodation was seen to be clean and hygienic.” from the report
Some suitable clinical support
People had clinical care plans and were referred to health professionals when needed. Inspectors found examples of good practice when decisions were made in people's best interests.
“People were assessed for nutritional needs and appropriate referrals made to health professionals if needed.” from the report
Medicines generally given correctly
Medicine records were generally completed accurately and medicines were being given as prescribed. Some guidance and checks still needed updating.
“Medicines administration records were generally completed accurately, however some records and checks needed updating with the latest administration instruction and use of when required medicines.” from the report
Too few consistent staff
seriousThere was heavy use of agency staff and vacancies in care, nursing and other roles. This reduced monitoring and made care less personal, and inspectors found this increased the risk of harm.
“This was a breach of regulation 18 (Staffing) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
Weak management and records
seriousManagers changed frequently and there was no consistent leadership. Care records, reviews and other records were incomplete, and known problems had not been resolved.
“This was a breach of regulation 17 (Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
People were cold
needs fixingThe heating was not working properly and people were seen shivering. Repairs were arranged on the day, but managers had not identified the problem beforehand.
“People were seen to be shivering and complaining of cold.” from the report
Little activity or social contact
needs fixingActivity staff were covering other duties, so planned activities were not taking place. Some people were left for long periods without social contact.
“People were observed to be left for long periods without social contact.” from the report
Complaints not consistently handled
needs fixingComplaint records did not show a reliable review or clear response. Some relatives did not believe their concerns were being listened to or acted on.
“Complaints records showed inconsistencies in how they were being managed.” from the report
- 01How many permanent care and nursing staff are now in post, and how much agency cover is still being used?
- 02Who is currently managing the home, and how will you provide consistent leadership?
- 03How often are care plans, risk assessments and emergency evacuation plans reviewed and updated?
- 04What activities are now available each day, and how do you make sure people are not left without social contact?
- 05How are complaints recorded, investigated and reported back to families?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with follow-up calls to relatives; the previous Good rating changed following this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 January 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.
Every inspection of Dale Park
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2022Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- October 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 October 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
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.