CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Mariners Park Care Home
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 unsafe medicines management and weak risk management. Care records gave conflicting instructions, and records did not always show that planned repositioning support had been provided.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had their needs and choices assessed, staff received relevant training and support, and consent was handled in line with the Mental Capacity Act. People's nutritional needs were assessed and meals offered choice.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people warmly, protecting their privacy and dignity, and encouraging independence.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Activities, relationships, communication support and complaints processes were in place. However, care plans were not always detailed, consistent or accurate enough to guide personalised care.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- People and relatives felt the home was well managed, but quality checks had failed to identify important problems. The provider had not fully addressed issues from the previous inspection and was providing care above its registered capacity.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but unsafe medicines, risk management and record-keeping problems remained.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 4, 6 and 13 April 2023. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment files and management audits.
The home was rated Good for Effective and Caring. People were supported by trained staff, had enough to eat and drink, and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people's choices, activities, relationships and end of life care.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Medicines were not always managed safely. Risk assessments and care records contained conflicting or out-of-date information, and records did not always show that planned care was provided. The home had not fully dealt with problems found at the previous inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw warm support that respected people's privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“We observed staff supporting people during the inspection, in a caring and warm manner.” from the report
Trained staff and improved consent
Staff had relevant training, competency checks and regular support. The home had improved how it sought consent and made best-interest decisions.
“People were supported by staff that had the knowledge and skills to carry out their roles.” from the report
Food and drink
People's nutritional needs and preferences were assessed. They had meal choices, alternatives and drinks available around the home.
“People told us they enjoyed the meals available. One person said, "The food is very good. You can choose what you want and ask for a snack.” from the report
Infection prevention
The home was clean, had cleaning schedules and enough protective equipment. Inspectors found systems to reduce the spread of infection.
“Effective infection prevention and control measures were in place, and these were reflected within the providers policies.” from the report
End of life support
Staff had training in end of life care, and care plans included people's wishes. Relatives praised the support and involvement they received.
“People received compassionate and dignified end of life care and support from staff who had undertaken training in this area.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousSome medicines were given after their expiry date or at the wrong time. Records did not always match the medicines given, and staff did not always have the information needed to give medicines safely.
“We found one medicine with a shortened expiry had been given to one person after its expiry date.” from the report
Risks and planned care
seriousCare plans contained conflicting instructions about matters such as catheters and oxygen therapy. Records did not always show that people received repositioning support as planned, including one person who had developed a pressure sore.
“Records did not always show that care planned to mitigate identified risks was provided.” from the report
Inaccurate care records
needs fixingCare plans and risk assessments did not always agree or reflect people's current needs. This included information about mobility equipment, mattresses, modified diets and emergency evacuation.
“Although improvements had been made, care plans were not always detailed, consistent and reflective of people's needs.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousThe home's audits did not identify all the issues found by inspectors. Earlier concerns had not all been addressed or embedded in practice.
“The systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service were not always effective and placed people at risk of receiving unsafe or poor quality care.” from the report
Registered capacity was exceeded
seriousThe home was registered to provide care for up to 32 people but was caring for 36 people during the inspection.
“The service was registered to provide care for up to 32 service users. During our inspection we identified the service was providing care for 36 service users” from the report
- 01What has been done to make medicines safer, including checks on expiry dates, dose records and time-sensitive medicines?
- 02How do you now make sure care plans give consistent instructions about oxygen, catheters, mobility equipment, mattresses and modified diets?
- 03How do you check that repositioning and other planned care is actually carried out and recorded?
- 04What action has been taken about the warning notices for Regulations 12 and 17?
- 05How is the home addressing the difference between its registered limit of 32 people and the 36 people found living there at the inspection?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, after concerns raised at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 June 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, May 2022
Mariners Park Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found well-managed infection control and visiting arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors visited on 12 May 2022. The visit was announced 24 hours beforehand and focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and any staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, arranged testing, followed shielding and social distancing guidance, and had plans to prevent or manage outbreaks. They also found regular infection control audits and enough PPE for staff.
The home supported visits and contact with relatives while reducing infection risks. This was a targeted inspection, so the service was marked inspected but not rated rather than given an overall quality rating.
Contact with relatives
The home had arrangements for regular visits and contact with relatives while reducing infection risks.
“People living in the home and their relatives were supported to maintain contact.” from the report
Managing COVID-19 risks
The manager had identified and assessed COVID-19 risks and worked with relevant partner agencies during the outbreak.
“The registered manager had identified, assessed and mitigated COVID-19 related risks to people, staff and visitors.” from the report
Infection control checks
Regular audits were completed, and the provider and manager monitored infection prevention and control arrangements.
“Regular infection control audits were completed and the provider and manager had oversight of infection prevention and control processes.” from the report
PPE and testing
Inspectors found that staff used PPE appropriately and that testing was available for people, staff, essential carers and visitors.
“Staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) and followed guidance and practices. There was abundant PPE available to staff.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visiting arrangements managed now, and how can relatives keep in touch if visits are restricted?
- 02How often are people, staff and visitors tested, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 03How do you manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 04How often are infection control audits completed, and what action is taken when they identify a problem?
- 05Is there still enough PPE available for staff, and how is its safe use checked?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide an overall rating or assess all areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 May 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 Mariners Park Care Home
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- June 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 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.