CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Marine Park View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Marine Park View is rated Inadequate and in special measures; inspectors found risks to safety, poor records and weak management despite improvements underway.
This was an unannounced inspection. Inspectors visited on 20 June 2023 and gathered information until 29 June. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a health professional. They also observed care and checked care records, medicine records, staff files and management documents.
Inspectors found serious problems with safety, medicines, cleanliness, the building, care records and management checks. Some bedrooms did not have working nurse call cords. Bathrooms were not working, the medicines storage was unsuitable, and some areas and equipment were unclean. Staff recruitment records were also incomplete.
The home was making changes, including increasing staffing, improving training, introducing new care planning and starting refurbishment. However, inspectors said the changes had not had enough time to become established. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection in 2018 to Inadequate.
Health professional support
People could access health professionals when needed. Staff worked with several other services to support people's health needs.
“People had access to health professionals when required. Staff worked with a range of other professionals, including GPs, district nurses, speech and language therapy and social workers.” from the report
Staff training
The home had introduced more training and most staff training was up to date. Staff also received supervision and competency checks.
“The majority of staff training was up to date and any outstanding training was ongoing.” from the report
Some caring interactions
Although care was inconsistent, inspectors saw some positive and respectful interactions between staff and people.
“At other times we observed some very positive interaction between people and staff which was kindly and caring.” from the report
End-of-life wishes
People's wishes to remain at the home near the end of their lives were respected. Relevant people were involved in decisions when needed.
“People's wishes to remain at the home were respected when they neared the end of their life.” from the report
Safety risks
seriousSome bedrooms did not have nurse call bell cords, and no shower or bath was working at the inspection. Inspectors said people were at risk of avoidable harm.
“People were at risk of unsafe care as strong systems were not in place to ensure people were kept safe from the risk of avoidable harm.” from the report
Medicines management
seriousMedicines storage was unsuitable and records did not always include photographs or guidance for medicines prescribed for use when needed.
“Medicines were not all managed safely.” from the report
Cleanliness and building condition
seriousSome areas, furniture, carpets and equipment were dirty. The building needed repairs and refurbishment, and some bedrooms were cold or poorly arranged.
“The provider failed to maintain an appropriate level of hygiene around the building.” from the report
Personalised care records
seriousCare records did not give staff enough information about people's history, preferences, routines and support needs. Daily records were also not always completed.
“Records did not provide guidance for all staff to provide person-centred and consistent care to people.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingPeople had few activities, outings or opportunities for engagement. Inspectors saw people left without activities while staff were busy.
“There were limited activities, entertainment and opportunities for engagement for people, including people who lived with dementia.” from the report
Communication with relatives
needs fixingSome relatives said communication was poor and were not kept informed about changes. The home was asked to strengthen its communication and feedback systems.
“We recommend that systems to communicate with relatives are strengthened to ensure people and relatives are kept up to date with changes being introduced and to gather their feedback.” from the report
- 01Have all bedrooms now got working nurse call bell cords, and are the shower and bath facilities working safely?
- 02What has changed about medicines storage, medicines records and guidance for medicines used when needed?
- 03How have you repaired and cleaned the building, equipment, carpets and bedrooms, and how do you check that standards stay at that level?
- 04How are care plans now recording each person's preferences, routines, communication needs and daily support?
- 05What activities and outings are now available, and how are relatives kept informed about changes and invited to give feedback?
The inspection began as a focused follow-up to concerns about care, staffing, management and culture, then widened into a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the previous ratings were from 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 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, March 2021
Seahaven Care Home: targeted inspection found safe staffing, training and infection controls; the previous Good rating remained in place.
This was a targeted inspection on 10 February and 25 February 2021. Inspectors checked concerns about staffing, staff knowledge, nutrition monitoring, and infection control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found enough suitably checked and trained staff. People's needs were reviewed regularly. They also found that staff monitored people's weight, involved health professionals when needed, and supported people with food and drink.
The home had infection control arrangements that inspectors were assured about, including PPE, testing, hygiene, social distancing and outbreak planning. One weakness was that conversations with staff about lessons from incidents were not always fully recorded.
The service was inspected but not rated in this visit. Its previous overall rating of Good, published in May 2018, remained unchanged. This report did not assess every part of the service.
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough skilled staff, and recruitment checks were completed for permanent and agency workers.
“Staffing levels were safe. People had their dependency assessed monthly and the registered manager ensured there were enough skilled and qualified staff available to support people.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received regular training and new workers had induction, competency checks and shadowing before providing care.
“New staff received an induction, which included training, competency assessments and shadowing sessions, before delivering care to people.” from the report
Nutrition support
People were offered meal choices and alternatives. Their weights were monitored and other health professionals were involved when necessary.
“People's weights were monitored for any changes and healthcare professionals were involved when necessary if people were losing weight or had difficulty eating or drinking.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about the home's arrangements for PPE, testing, hygiene, social distancing and managing possible outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Incomplete incident records
needs fixingThe home shared lessons from accidents and incidents verbally, but it did not always record these discussions fully. This could make it harder to confirm what staff had been told and what actions were agreed.
“The registered manager updated staff verbally with outcomes and actions from investigations. These conversations were not always fully recorded.” from the report
- 01How do you now record that staff have been told about lessons and actions following accidents or incidents?
- 02How often will my relative's needs and the staffing level needed to support them be reviewed?
- 03How will you monitor my relative's weight and respond if they lose weight or have difficulty eating or drinking?
- 04What infection control, testing and visiting arrangements are currently in place?
- 05What parts of the service will be reviewed at the next comprehensive inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about Safe and Effective care, including infection control; it did not reassess the other key questions or change the previous Good ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 March 2021 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 Marine Park View
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.
- August 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 July 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of South Tyneside
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 £950 to £1,140 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in 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.