CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dalemain House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Requires Improvement; inspectors found people felt safe, but care records and management checks were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 30 May, 9 June and 10 June 2022. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked records, training, maintenance and infection control.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staffing levels were considered sufficient, recruitment checks were robust, and medicines and infection control were managed safely.
Inspectors found gaps in risk assessments, personal emergency evacuation plans, accident reviews and care records. Some required notifications had not been sent to CQC. These weaknesses meant there was limited assurance about safety and a risk that people could be harmed.
The home was previously rated Good in January 2018. This inspection only looked at Safe and Well-led, so the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection. The provider sent an action plan after the inspection, and CQC said it would monitor progress.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors that staff treated them well and that they felt safe.
“People and their relatives told us staff treated them well and that they felt safe with them.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely. Recruitment included references and Disclosure and Barring Service checks.
“Staff were safely recruited following a robust recruitment process, which included references and Disclose and Barring Service Checks.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored, handled and disposed of safely. Staff who administered them were trained and competent.
“Medicines were stored and managed safely. Medication was administered by staff who were trained and competent to do so.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, protective equipment, testing, visiting arrangements and the management of possible outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Open response to feedback
The management team was described as honest and transparent during the inspection and sent an action plan afterwards.
“The deputy manager and nominated individual were honest about some of these issues, and took immediate action to improve these areas” from the report
Incomplete and conflicting records
needs fixingSome care records and risk assessments were missing information or contradicted each other. This could make it harder for staff to understand and manage people's risks.
“Some people's risk assessments contained conflicting information, which made them confusing in parts.” from the report
Accidents and incidents
needs fixingRecords of accidents and incidents were not always examined closely enough to show that lessons had been learned. One incident was not reported to CQC when it should have been.
“We could not always be sure lessons had been learnt from the information recorded and this needed to be improved.” from the report
Emergency evacuation information
needs fixingPersonal emergency evacuation plans had been reviewed, but some did not state what equipment people would need to leave the building.
“Some information was missing from the PEEPs, such as what equipment people would need to evacuate the building.” from the report
Weak governance
seriousThe provider's checks were not effective enough to identify problems in care records and risk assessments. This was a breach of Regulation 17.
“There was no evidence people had been harmed, however the provider had failed to ensure there were effective governance, records, and quality assurance measures in place.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. The report says a new manager had been appointed and planned to register with CQC.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01Which risk assessments were updated after the inspection, and how do you check that information stays consistent across care plans?
- 02How do you now review accidents and incidents to make sure lessons are identified and acted on?
- 03Have all residents' personal emergency evacuation plans been completed with the equipment each person would need?
- 04Has the new manager registered with CQC, and who is currently responsible for day-to-day oversight?
- 05What progress has been made against the action plan sent to CQC after this inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection published on 8 January 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 July 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 were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 7 December 2020. It followed concerns about infection control and prevention measures.
Inspectors looked at how the home prevented infections. They were assured that visitors, residents and staff were protected through social distancing, cleaning, personal protective equipment, testing and safe admissions.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other four questions.
Social distancing
The layout of the lounge was changed to help people keep apart.
“Social distancing was promoted by the placement of coffee tables between lounge chairs.” from the report
Increased cleaning
Cleaning had been increased, including for items shared by staff.
“Cleaning had been increased and included additional requirements for items that had to be shared amongst staff.” 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 control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering protective equipment, testing, admissions and infection outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are the infection control arrangements described in this report being maintained now?
- 02How do you manage visitors and social distancing when people come into the home?
- 03How often are shared items such as keys and telephones cleaned?
- 04How do you support residents who are at greater risk from COVID-19 or other infections?
- 05What were the home's ratings for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care at its previous inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only, and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 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 Dalemain House
2 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- July 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2018GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 September 2016.
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.