CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Marple Dale Hall - The New Windsor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff generally followed safe systems. Inspectors found weaknesses in instructions for some crushed medicines, records for creams, and the placement of some call bells.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and they received healthcare support, food and drink support, and help to make decisions. Inspectors recommended ensuring all required staff training was available and completed.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. People generally described staff as kind, caring and respectful.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report noted that people generally received person-centred care, but some people had to wait in the morning for help to get up.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers used audits, meetings, feedback and incident reviews to monitor quality and act on shortfalls. People, relatives and staff said they could share views and raise concerns.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and clear improvements, but noted medicines, training and some daily support needed attention.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 2 and 14 March 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found people generally felt safe, staff were kind, care needs were assessed, and managers had systems to check quality and learn from problems.
There were still areas to improve. Inspectors recommended safer instructions and recording for some medicines, checking that required staff training was completed, and noted concerns about call bells, oral care, morning routines and food. Caring and Responsive were not inspected in this visit, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities. Risk assessments and emergency plans were in place.
“People told us they felt safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff's kindness. People were asked for consent and supported to make choices and remain independent.
“People generally told us care was delivered in a person-centred way and spoke very positively about how kind and caring staff were.” from the report
Good healthcare support
The home worked with a range of health professionals. Inspectors found that advice was included in care records and had improved outcomes for some people.
“Advice was incorporated into people's care records and input had led to improved outcomes for people.” from the report
Improved management oversight
Managers used audits, meetings and feedback to identify problems and check that action was taken. The home had improved since the previous inspection and was no longer in breach.
“Where shortfalls were identified, action was taken, and this was followed up by the registered manager.” from the report
Some medicines processes
needs fixingSome medicines that were crushed did not have clear pharmacist instructions, and staff did not always follow available directions. Records for applying creams were also not always accurate.
“Records used for topical preparations such as creams were not always completed accurately.” from the report
Required staff training
needs fixingThe training records did not show that all relevant training required by regulation and best practice had been completed.
“The training matrix did not demonstrate all relevant training in line with regulatory requirements and best practice was being completed.” from the report
Access to call bells
needs fixingInspectors found a couple of examples where call bells were not within people's reach. Some people also said they sometimes waited for help.
“We noted these were generally in place in people's rooms, although we found a couple of examples where people did not have their call bells within reach.” from the report
Food quality
needs fixingPeople gave mixed feedback about the food. Some said meals were not always fully cooked or warm, and that menus could be repetitive.
“People told us the food was not always good and gave us examples where food was not fully cooked or was not warm.” from the report
Some daily care arrangements
minorSome people said they had to wait in the morning to get up because staff had to use a hoist. Inspectors also said it was not always clear that oral care had been provided.
“I have to wait in the morning for someone to get me up. I have to get up when it suits them because they have to move me with a hoist.” from the report
- 01What checks are now in place to make sure medicines that are crushed have safe pharmacist instructions and are given as directed?
- 02How do you record the application of creams, and how do you check those records are accurate?
- 03Which mandatory training was incomplete at the inspection, and is it now available and completed by all relevant staff?
- 04How will you make sure every person can reach their call bell and receives a prompt response?
- 05What changes have been made to food quality, temperature and menu variety?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 April 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 2021
Marple Dale Hall - The New Windsor is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found problems with medicines, personalised care and management oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 8 and 9 June 2021. Inspectors looked at safe, effective and well-led care because of concerns about care needs, staffing and medicines. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care, medicine and management records.
Inspectors found that medicines were not always recorded or managed safely. Some medicines were out of date, records were incomplete, and checks did not always prevent medicines being given too close together or at the wrong time. People also sometimes waited a long time for care, and care plans contained conflicting information.
The home had arrangements for safeguarding, staff training, recruitment, infection control and emergency safety. However, its audits had not found the problems identified during the inspection. The provider and manager started immediate action, but the service remained in breach of three regulations.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. The safe, effective and well-led areas were rated Requires Improvement. Caring and responsive were not inspected during this visit, so earlier ratings for those areas were used.
Safeguarding arrangements
There were systems to protect people from abuse, and staff knew how to raise safeguarding and whistleblowing concerns. Accident and incident information was reviewed for patterns and risks.
“The provider ensured that systems and processes to protect people from the risk of abuse were in place and lessons were learnt when things went wrong.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found clean and well-maintained personal spaces. Staff had suitable protective equipment and COVID-19 training, and visiting arrangements included testing and protective equipment.
“Personal spaces were clean, hygienic and well maintained.” from the report
Staff training and consent
Staff had received required training and supervision. People were asked for consent, and representatives and professionals were involved in best-interest decisions.
“People's consent was sought before staff supported them.” from the report
Open management response
The management team accepted feedback during the inspection and began making changes. External professionals also said staff and management were helpful when information was requested.
“The management team were responsive and open to all feedback on the day of inspection.” from the report
Medicine safety
seriousMedicine administration and stock records were not consistently accurate. Inspectors also found risks around timing, personalised instructions, medicine patches and the storage of unwanted medicines.
“Staff did not always complete records of administration accurately and the quantity of medicines in stock was not always recorded.” from the report
Waiting for care and limited activities
needs fixingPeople sometimes waited a long time for call bells, personal care, drinks or help to go to bed. People cared for in bed had minimal activities and were at risk of social isolation.
“People told us they often had to wait for care.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe provider completed audits, but these checks did not identify important problems found during the inspection. This meant there was not enough assurance that care was safe and effective.
“Audits had been regularly completed but they had failed to identify areas of concern found during this inspection.” from the report
Conflicting care information
needs fixingCare plans had been reviewed but did not always clearly and consistently describe people's current needs. One plan contained conflicting information about eating.
“Care plans were lengthy and did not consistently and clearly reflect people's current care needs.” from the report
- 01What checks now confirm that every medicine dose is recorded accurately and that stock levels can be accounted for?
- 02How do you prevent medicines being given too close together or at the wrong time?
- 03How quickly are call bells answered, and how do you monitor waits for personal care, drinks and bedtime support?
- 04What activities and social contact are now offered to people who are cared for in bed?
- 05How have you changed your audits so they identify problems with medicines, care plans and person-centred care?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their earlier ratings were used. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 July 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 Marple Dale Hall - The New Windsor
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Marple Dale Hall - The New Windsor →
- July 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Marple Dale Hall - The New Windsor →
- November 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Stockport
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. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.