CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Giles Shirley Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Giles Shirley Hall: Rated Requires Improvement; care was safe and caring, but decision-making, premises and management needed improvement.
Inspectors visited in January 2019, spoke with a person living at the home, relatives, managers and staff, and checked the building, bedrooms and records. Eleven people lived there, although the home could support up to 12.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines, suitable recruitment checks and positive relationships between staff and people. People and relatives said they felt safe, happy and well supported. Care plans were person-centred, but some had not been updated when people's needs changed.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Responsive. It was rated Requires Improvement for Effective and Well-led. Problems included incomplete mental capacity records, limited information about a food allergy, premises that did not follow current best-practice guidance, and quality checks that had not identified or resolved these issues.
Kind, knowledgeable staff
Staff knew people well and understood how they communicated their needs, feelings and wishes. People and relatives were positive about the support.
“Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good knowledge of the way people preferred to be supported, their needs, likes and dislikes.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed and medicines were stored and managed safely.
“Medicines were stored and managed safely.” from the report
Person-centred support
Plans included people's routines, preferences, life history and communication methods. People were supported to maintain skills such as cleaning their rooms and making snacks.
“People's support plans contained clear and easy to understand information about their needs and risks and how to support them effectively.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People could choose from community, vocational, creative and outdoor activities, as well as keeping up their hobbies.
“These services gave people the opportunity to develop a range of skills and enjoy a selection of creative and outdoor activities of their choice with their peers and staff.” from the report
Positive atmosphere
Inspectors saw relaxed relationships between staff and people. Feedback from people, relatives and staff was positive, and staff morale was good.
“The atmosphere at the home was positive and inclusive.” from the report
Mental capacity and consent
seriousCapacity was not always assessed when DoLS safeguards were renewed. There was also no capacity assessment recorded for one medical procedure where there were concerns about the person's ability to consent.
“We did not find evidence that people's capacity was always assessed when these safeguards were renewed.” from the report
Premises and independence
needs fixingThe campus-style setting, signs and internal day services did not reflect current best-practice guidance about ordinary living. Required adaptations for one person's changing needs had not been made, and the smoking shelter was not fit for purpose.
“The design and layout of the building did not foster this philosophy and made it difficult to promote choice, independence and a sense that people were living in their own home.” from the report
Out-of-date care information
needs fixingSome support plans did not reflect changes in people's needs. Information about one person's food allergy did not explain the reaction or what staff should do.
“This meant it was difficult to tell what type of allergic reaction the person experienced and staff lacked sufficient guidance on the action to take if the person had an allergic reaction.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
needs fixingThe provider's checks had not identified important issues with best-practice guidance, adaptations and the Mental Capacity Act. Repeated reports about the boiler, decoration and flooring had not led to enough action.
“The repetitive nature of the concerns identified however indicated that to date the provider had taken little action to address them.” from the report
Lift certificate missing
needs fixingA safety certificate for the passenger lift was not available during the inspection. The lift had been serviced and maintained, and the manager said this would be addressed without delay.
“A LOLER (The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998) certificate to demonstrate that the home's passenger lift was safe to use however was not available at the time of the inspection.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to obtain and keep available the passenger lift safety certificate?
- 02How are you now assessing people's capacity and recording consent when DoLS authorisations are reviewed or medical procedures are planned?
- 03What information has been added to the food allergy plan, including the signs of a reaction and the action staff should take?
- 04What adaptations have been made for the person's changing needs, and when will the outstanding boiler, decoration and flooring work be completed?
- 05What choices and alternative activities are offered if someone does not want to attend the provider's day services?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises, care records, medicines, staff records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 2019 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, September 2016
Giles Shirley Hall was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor medicines-record and room-temperature issues.
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection on 7 and 13 July 2016. One inspector visited the home, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care files, training, recruitment and management records.
The home supported 11 people, with space for up to 12. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe recruitment, appropriate safeguarding arrangements, safe medicine storage and good fire and building safety checks.
Care plans were person-centred and kept up to date. People and relatives were involved in care planning, people could choose activities, and staff were described as caring, respectful and supportive.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspection found the home meeting the required standards at the time of the visit, although it was not without minor issues.
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and saw that recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“We saw that people appeared to feel safe and confident in the staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's backgrounds, health, emotional needs and interests. People and families were involved in creating and reviewing them.
“The care files that we saw were easily readable, understandable and person centred.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff supported people with care and patience, while respecting their views, privacy and relationships with family and friends.
“We saw that staff interacted and supported people with care and patience.” from the report
Choice and communication
People could choose activities and meals where possible. Easy-read documents and a picture-based communication system helped people understand and express themselves.
“Many of the documents in the care plans and the posters on the notice boards were in 'easy read' format.” from the report
Open management
Staff said they were well supported and could raise concerns. Records, audits and notifications to the CQC were managed properly.
“We saw that the leadership was transparent, informed and open and that staff did not have any hesitation in talking with the registered manager.” from the report
Medicine storage temperature
minorThe medicine room reached up to 28C in the afternoon. Inspectors asked the manager to use the air conditioning earlier on warm days.
“We discussed with the manager that a more pro-active solution might be considered and the manager agreed to turn on the air conditioning unit earlier in the day on warm days.” from the report
- 01How are carried-forward medicine balances recorded and checked now?
- 02How do you keep the medicine storage room at a suitable temperature on hot days?
- 03How will my relative be involved in creating and reviewing their care plan?
- 04Which communication methods, including easy-read information or picture systems, would you use for my relative?
- 05How are staffing levels planned when people attend day services or other activities?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC areas and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 September 2016 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 Giles Shirley Hall
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2019Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 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
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.