CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Damfield Gardens
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found gaps in records for medicines, controlled drugs, thickening powder, food and drink intake and repositioning. They found no evidence that anyone had been harmed, and staff understood people's risks.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management checks did not identify the record-keeping problems found by inspectors. The registered manager responded immediately and introduced new processes and extra training.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Damfield Gardens is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff and a clean home, but repeated problems with medicines records, risk monitoring and management checks.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 25 May 2022. Inspectors spoke with six people, six family members and six staff. They reviewed care plans, medicine records for 13 people and other management records.
People and families spoke positively about the care. People said they felt safe, and inspectors found enough staff during their visits. The home was clean, infection controls were in place, and staff understood people's individual risks.
Inspectors found gaps in records for medicines, food and drink, repositioning, choking risks and skin condition. Some staff and people also said staffing could feel low at busy times. The provider took immediate action, but the problems with records and management checks had been found at the last two inspections as well.
The overall rating remains Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. This inspection only assessed those two areas, so the other question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and could raise concerns with staff. Safeguarding concerns were recorded and appropriate action was taken.
“People told us they felt safe living at the home.” from the report
Staff understood risks
Staff had good knowledge of people's individual risks and how to support them. Risk assessments and detailed guidance were in place.
“Risks to people's health, safety and well-being had been assessed and detailed guidance in place for staff to support them safely.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic. Staff had infection-control training, supplies of protective equipment and arrangements for safe visiting.
“The home was clean and hygienic; staff responsible for the cleanliness of the environment kept a detailed record of the tasks they completed and how often.” from the report
Responsive management
The registered manager acted straight away when inspectors raised the problems. New recording processes and additional medicines training were put in place.
“The registered manager was responsive to the issues raised and took immediate action to address them.” from the report
Medicine and risk records
seriousRecords did not always show that medicines had been given or applied correctly, or that important risks had been monitored. This included choking, poor skin condition, food and drink intake and repositioning.
“We found some gaps in the recording of information in relation to food and drink intake and regular re-positioning.” from the report
Management checks missed problems
seriousThe home's audits and governance systems did not identify the record-keeping issues before the inspection. This was the third consecutive inspection where related concerns were found.
“The provider has been in breach of regulation for the last three consecutive inspections.” from the report
Busy periods
minorSome staff and people said staff could be under pressure or slower to respond during busy periods, especially in the mornings.
“People told us staff mostly responded to their requests for support in a timely manner.” from the report
- 01How are you now checking that 'as required' medicines are only given when needed?
- 02How do you record the application of pain patches and creams, and how do you check those records?
- 03How are food and drink intake and regular repositioning now monitored and audited?
- 04What evidence can you show that the new governance checks are finding and correcting record-keeping problems?
- 05How do you decide whether staffing is sufficient during busy periods, particularly in the mornings?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other question ratings and the overall rating were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 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, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured the home had safe infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 28 October 2020. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control because people at the home had tested positive for COVID-19.
Inspectors found safe visiting arrangements, including pre-arranged visits, health checks and personal protective equipment. The home had adapted its layout for social distancing and had a separate area for people with COVID-19 or symptoms.
People and staff had access to regular testing. Inspectors were assured that PPE, cleaning, screening, admissions and outbreak procedures were being managed safely.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other four areas of care.
Safe visiting
Visits were controlled through pre-arranged appointments, temperature checks, health screening and PPE.
“Visits were restricted to essential visitors only and pre-arranged.” from the report
PPE and testing
The home had the right standard of PPE, staff used it correctly, and people and staff had regular testing.
“There was a good stock of the right standard of personal protective equipment (PPE) and staff used and disposed of it correctly.” from the report
Family contact
Staff supported people to keep in regular contact with family and friends during the pandemic.
“Staff reassured people throughout the pandemic and provided them with the support they needed to maintain regular contact with their family and friends throughout the pandemic.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened and what PPE must they use?
- 02How often are people living here and staff tested for infections?
- 03What happens if someone develops COVID-19 symptoms or tests positive?
- 04How do you support residents to keep in contact with family when visits are restricted?
- 05How are new residents assessed, tested and supported during any period of self-isolation?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 November 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 Damfield Gardens
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- July 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 April 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.