CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Mersey Parks Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, appropriate risk assessments and robust environmental safety checks. Medicines were given on time, but some instructions and records were incomplete.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support for their health, diet, dental care and healthcare appointments. Staff training had improved, although some care records did not fully show the support people had received.
- Caring?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection, so no new rating was given in this report.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection, so no new rating was given in this report.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management had improved quality checks, acted on feedback and addressed previous breaches. The rating could not yet be raised to Good because consistent good practice had not been shown over time.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe and effective care, but leadership and some records still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors checked whether the home had followed its action plan, met legal requirements and addressed a previous warning notice. They visited on 12 May 2022 and reviewed further information up to 18 May 2022.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Effective. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable safety checks and good infection control. People received healthcare support, staff were trained, and mental capacity and best-interest processes were in place.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Management systems had improved and previous legal breaches had been addressed, but the inspectors found some incomplete medicines and care records. They also said leadership needed more time to show consistently good practice.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. This was the home's fourth consecutive rating of Requires Improvement. The Caring and Responsive questions were not inspected in this visit, so their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating.
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely. Recruitment checks included references and Disclosure and Barring Service checks.
“There was enough staff on duty to be able to support people safely.” from the report
Risk management
People's risks were assessed and reviewed. Staff showed they understood people's individual needs, and safety checks on the building had been completed.
“Risk assessment were clear, well written, and regularly reviewed to encompass people's changing needs.” from the report
Training and support
The manager identified gaps in staff training and enrolled staff on relevant courses. New staff had an induction based on the Care Certificate.
“Staff we spoke with told us they felt well trained and supported.” from the report
Improved quality checks
The home had better systems for checking quality, tracking actions and identifying patterns in incidents and other events.
“Quality assurance systems were well organised, robust and had been completed in a timely way” from the report
Incomplete medicines records
needs fixingSome instructions for creams and patches were not detailed enough. Records about thickening agents and pain relief also needed more information, which could create a safety risk.
“Records were not completed when a thickening agent had been added to a person's drink so there was a risk they might not be used safely.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingSome records did not fully show the support people needed or had received. The manager acted on the examples raised during the inspection.
“There was some records which where not place or had not been completed in full to evidence people had been supported correctly.” from the report
Food and communication
minorFeedback about the food was mixed. A relative also felt that communication still needed improvement.
“One relative told us they felt the home was "Moving in the right direction" however they still felt that some further improvement was needed to ensure communication was better.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that records for creams, patches, thickening agents and pain relief are complete and clear?
- 02How do you make sure care records are updated when someone's mobility, diet or other needs change?
- 03What changes have you made after the mixed feedback about food and menus?
- 04How are you improving communication with relatives?
- 05What evidence will you use to show CQC that well-led practice has remained consistent over time?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 June 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.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Overall Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe shortfalls and inadequate leadership, with limited progress since the last inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 9 February 2021. Inspectors looked at Safe, Effective and Well-led. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home did not always have enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. Medicines were not always stored safely. Risk assessments and care plans did not always give staff clear, up-to-date information. Some furniture was damaged and parts of the home were not adapted well for people living with dementia.
People and relatives generally spoke positively about staff and care, but communication was mixed. Staff training and supervision were not always up to date. The home had systems for checking quality, but these did not identify or resolve problems effectively.
The overall rating remains Requires Improvement. Safe and Effective were also Requires Improvement, while Well-led fell to Inadequate. Caring and Responsive were not inspected, so their earlier ratings were used in the overall rating.
Positive views of staff
People and relatives generally said people felt safe and well cared for. Some relatives also described managers as approachable.
“People and relatives generally told us they felt people were safe and well cared for at Mersey Parks Care Home.” from the report
Infection control measures
Inspectors saw staff wearing protective equipment correctly, and protective equipment was available. The home was taking part in coronavirus testing and vaccination arrangements.
“PPE was readily available to visitors and staff at the entrance of units and, on the day, we observed all staff were wearing this correctly in line with the current guidance.” from the report
Access to health support
Staff made referrals to health professionals when needed and sought medical attention after accidents. Health professionals also visited the home.
“There was a system for monitoring falls. Appropriate action was taken in response to individual's accidents and medical attention was sought.” from the report
Staffing levels
seriousThere were not always enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. Staff said they were very busy and some felt unable to provide the quality of care they wanted.
“There were not enough staff and that people did not always receive the support they needed in a timely way.” from the report
Medicines and risk management
seriousSome medicines were delayed and prescribed creams were not always stored securely. Risk assessments did not always explain clearly how staff should reduce risks.
“The systems in place were not robust enough to demonstrate safety of medicines was effectively managed.” from the report
Care records and support
seriousCare plans were not always updated when people's needs changed. Staff could therefore lack clear information about how to support people, including with eating and drinking.
“Care plans were not always amended to show how people's needs had changed meaning that staff could not be clear on how to support people appropriately.” from the report
Environment
seriousSome furniture needed repair, and one dementia unit was not adapted to support people's independence. Environmental checks had not reliably found these problems.
“The home was not always adapted to meet the needs of the people living in the unit.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure there are enough staff on each unit to meet people's needs promptly?
- 02How are prescribed creams and other medicines now stored and given on time?
- 03How do you make sure care plans are updated quickly when a person's needs change?
- 04What repairs and dementia-friendly changes have been completed since this inspection?
- 05What action was taken in response to the Regulation 17 warning notice, and how is improvement now checked?
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. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 April 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 Mersey Parks Care Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- June 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 January 2017.
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
91 live-in carers within about an hour of Liverpool
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. 83 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.”
“All in all Kama b cared for the owner really well, every aspect of her care was of the highest standard.”
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.