CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hurst Park Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff and enough trained workers, but risks, consent and management records were not always handled safely.
Inspectors visited on 6 and 12 July 2023. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that risks such as falls and long-term health conditions were not always monitored properly. Medicines records, consent for restrictions and care records were also not always complete or lawful.
There were positive findings. People and relatives said people were happy, treated well and safe. There were enough suitably skilled staff, people were supported with food and healthcare, and staff were described as caring and approachable.
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so the previous ratings for those areas were carried forward when calculating the overall rating. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 30 July 2022.
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough suitably skilled and experienced staff. Recruitment checks were completed safely.
“People received care and support from the right amount of suitably skilled and experience staff who were safely recruited.” from the report
People felt safe
People and relatives said people were happy, treated well and safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.
“Family members told us they felt their relative was kept safe and treated well.” from the report
Training and support
Staff had induction and ongoing training. Staff said managers were supportive and approachable.
“Staff told us they felt well supported, they described the managers as very supportive and approachable.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People were supported to access healthcare and were offered choices of food and drink. Kitchen staff knew about preferences and special diets.
“People received the support they needed to eat and drink and maintain a balanced diet.” from the report
Infection control
Most infection prevention arrangements gave inspectors assurance. The home had received a high score in a recent infection control audit.
“The service scored 94.89 % which represented a Silver Certificate for Excellence with infection prevention and control.” from the report
Risks were not consistently managed
seriousSome risks, including falls and long-term health conditions, were not routinely monitored. This could delay action if someone's health deteriorated.
“Risks associated with aspects of people's care such as falls, and long-term physical and mental health conditions were not routinely monitored” from the report
Unlawful restrictions
seriousSome restrictions were used without the required lawful consent process. These included locked bedroom doors and a period of continuous one-to-one care.
“Decisions to deprive some people of their liberty were made without it being legally authorised under the MCA.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingSome assessments and care plans did not fully explain people's needs or how staff should respond to changes in health. Personal care records were also left accessible in communal areas.
“Some people's personal care records were left unattended in communal areas making them accessible to unauthorised others.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingRecords and guidance for some medicines given when needed were incomplete. The home updated records after inspectors raised the issue.
“There was no protocol in place to guide staff on the use of a PRN medicine prescribed for anxiety for one person” from the report
Quality checks were not effective
needs fixingAudits and checks were not always completed on time or effective enough to identify and reduce risks. Some improvement work remained outstanding.
“Audits and checks were not consistently completed, therefore opportunities to identify and mitigate risk and bring about improvements to the service were missed.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
minorThe environment was spacious and supported mobility, but there were few focal points to provide meaningful stimulation for people living with dementia. Inspectors made a recommendation about this.
“There were few focal points along hallways to support meaningful stimulation for people living with dementia.” from the report
- 01How do you now assess and monitor falls and long-term health conditions, and how do you act when someone's health changes?
- 02How do you make sure medicines given when needed have clear guidance and complete records showing the time and reason they were given?
- 03What lawful consent or best-interest processes are now used for locked bedroom doors, one-to-one care and any other restrictions?
- 04Which actions in the improvement plan are complete, and which are still outstanding?
- 05How are care records kept complete, up to date and secure from unauthorised access?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward when calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 August 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, July 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no breaches reported.
The home provides personal care for up to 52 older people. At the inspection, 40 people were living there, including some people with dementia. This was the first inspection since the home was newly registered.
Inspectors visited without notice on 13 July 2022. They spoke with people, family members and staff, and reviewed care plans, medicine records, recruitment records and management records. They also checked infection control arrangements.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicine management, clean premises, personalised care, kind staff and effective management systems.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were described as kind, gentle and patient. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity and encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
“Staff treated people with kindness, compassion and respect. Positive and caring relationships had been developed between people and staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's needs, choices and preferences. People and their families were involved in reviewing their care.
“There was a personalised approach to planning people's care and support.” from the report
Activities and family involvement
People were offered group and one-to-one activities. Families were made welcome and encouraged to join celebrations and events.
“People were supported to engage in a wide range of meaningful activities and to maintain important relationships.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager and provider used audits, feedback and incident reviews to monitor quality and make improvements.
“There were effective systems and processes for assessing, monitoring and improving the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you keep staffing levels consistent if permanent staff are unavailable?
- 02How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing their care plan?
- 03What activities would be suitable for my relative's interests, communication needs and level of independence?
- 04How will you support my relative's eating, drinking and healthcare needs if these change?
- 05How can we raise a concern or complaint, and how will you keep us informed about the response?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 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.
Every inspection of Hurst Park Court
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- August 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2022GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 May 2021.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Knowsley
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 £1,260 a week. 91 can care for a couple. 10 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.