CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Huyton Hey Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found robust risk assessments, enough suitable staff, safe medicines systems and good infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive, open culture, clear management arrangements and systems that monitored quality and supported improvement.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Huyton Hey Manor was rated Good; inspectors found safe care and strong management, but this was only a focused inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 20 November 2023. One inspector reviewed three care plans, three staff recruitment files, medicine records and other documents. They spoke with three people living at the home, one relative and four staff.
Inspectors found people felt safe and were well looked after. Risk assessments were detailed and regularly reviewed. Staffing, recruitment, medicines, infection control and the handling of accidents were all found to be safe.
The home had a positive culture and clear management arrangements. Staff felt supported, people and staff were asked for their views, and the provider used audits, meetings and partnership work to improve care.
The inspection looked only at Safe and Well-led. Both were rated Good. The other areas were not inspected at this visit, and the overall rating used ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Detailed risk planning
Risk assessments clearly explained the actions staff should take to reduce harm. They were reviewed monthly or when people's needs changed.
“Risk assessments were robust, and clearly described the course of action staff were expected to take to mitigate harm.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and given only by trained staff whose skills were checked each year. There were also separate instructions for medicines given when needed.
“Medicine was only administered by staff who had undergone specific training enabling them to do this, and they had their competency assessed every 12 months.” from the report
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found staffing levels matched people's needs. Recruitment checks and induction were completed before staff worked at the home.
“Staff told us, and we observed, there was enough of staff to ensure people's needs were being met in accordance with their dependency levels.” from the report
Open management
Staff said they felt supported, and the home had regular team meetings and systems to monitor quality. People living at the home were also asked for feedback.
“The provider had a clear management structure which monitored the quality of care to drive improvements in service delivery.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home reviewed accidents and incidents for patterns. Inspectors saw an example where action was taken after repeated falls.
“There was an incident and accident log and analysis in place which demonstrated incidents and accident had been scrutinised for patterns and trends.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you review and update my relative's risk assessments if their needs change?
- 02How do you check that staff remain competent to give medicines, including medicines needed only when required?
- 03What arrangements are in place if the lift breaks down and people cannot reach communal areas?
- 04How do you monitor and respond if someone has repeated falls?
- 05What recent feedback from people living at the home has led to a change in care?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 January 2024 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 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with minor record-keeping and mattress concerns.
The inspection took place on 31 October and 2 November 2017. The first visit was unannounced. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, managers and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff rotas, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements, clean premises, suitable care plans, good activities and approachable management.
The home had improved parts of its environment since the previous inspection in December 2014. Inspectors noted that fire alarm checks appeared to have been completed but had not been recorded for four weeks. They were also told that some mattresses were old and soiled and needed replacing.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.
“People told us "Yes I feel safe here" and "yes I am absolutely safe".” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were securely stored and records were completed. Staff were trained and their competence was checked.
“Medication was safely managed. All medication was securely locked away in trolleys which in turn were locked in a medication room.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff used a patient and respectful approach. Inspectors saw staff protect privacy and dignity and encourage people without rushing them.
“People were spoken with in a respectful and dignified manner at all times.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care plans included people's routines, likes, dislikes and social histories. The home supported group activities and individual interests.
“Each care plan contained information that was person centred for each individual.” from the report
Open management
The manager was visible and approachable. The home used audits, meetings and feedback to review its work.
“The registered manager adopted an open and transparent approach to running the service.” from the report
Fire alarm records
minorInspectors were told that weekly fire alarm checks had taken place, but there were no written records for the four weeks before the inspection. The manager agreed to address this.
“no record of these checks had been made during the four weeks prior to the inspection.” from the report
Some mattresses needed replacing
minorInspectors received information that some mattresses were old and soiled. Four had been replaced, and the condition of the others was to continue being monitored.
“mattresses within the building were old and soiled and in need of replacement.” from the report
- 01Have all the mattresses identified as old or soiled now been replaced?
- 02How are weekly fire alarm checks recorded and checked by managers?
- 03Are any people's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations close to expiry, and how are renewals managed?
- 04How will the home arrange dental services for residents who need them?
- 05How will you make sure my relative's personal interests and preferred activities are included in their care plan?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the previous Good ratings from December 2014 reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 November 2017 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 Huyton Hey Manor
3 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 December 2010.
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.