CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Merseyview Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention and control measures. They were only somewhat assured about visiting arrangements and the infection control policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Merseyview Residential Home was inspected but not rated; infection control was generally reassuring, but visiting guidance and the infection control policy needed attention.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 11 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors were assured about most infection control arrangements. These included personal protective equipment, testing, social distancing, cleaning, admissions and managing outbreaks. The home also had arrangements for visitors and helped people keep in touch with family and friends.
The inspection found two areas needing improvement. The provider was not aware of current guidance about essential care giver visits, and its infection prevention and control policy had not been reviewed since the start of the pandemic.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a quality rating for the service or a full rating across the five CQC questions.
Safe visiting arrangements
The home used an appointment system and a dedicated, ventilated visiting space. The space was cleaned after each visit.
“The dining room was the designated space for visits, this was well ventilated, visitors used wiped clean seats and it was cleaned after every visit.” from the report
Individual risk assessments
Each person had a COVID-19 risk assessment that included adjustments for their individual needs.
“Every person had a COVID-19 risk assessment that included adjustments required to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Family contact
Staff supported people to use video calls and arranged ways for relatives to visit safely.
“People were supported to maintain contact with family and friends in creative ways.” from the report
Vaccinations
The report says all staff and people living in the home had received two vaccine doses and a booster.
“This meant all staff and people living in the home had received two doses of the vaccine and their booster.” from the report
No reported resident COVID-19 cases
The report says there had been no cases of COVID-19 among people living in the home throughout the pandemic.
“There had been no cases of COVID-19 in people living in the home throughout the pandemic.” from the report
Essential care giver visits
needs fixingThe provider did not know the current guidance about essential care givers visiting. Inspectors signposted the provider to the guidance.
“However, we found the provider was not aware of current guidance in relation to essential care givers visiting the home.” from the report
Outdated infection control policy
needs fixingThe infection prevention and control policy had not been reviewed since the start of the pandemic. Inspectors said it was generic and did not fully reflect the home's circumstances.
“However, we found the Infection Prevention and Control Policy had not been reviewed since it's implementation at the start of the pandemic.” from the report
- 01What is the home's current process for essential care giver visits?
- 02When was the infection prevention and control policy last reviewed and updated?
- 03How does the current policy reflect the specific circumstances of this home?
- 04How are visitors currently managed, including appointments, ventilation and cleaning?
- 05What arrangements are in place to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the home was inspected but not rated and the other quality areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 January 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, September 2019
Rated Good overall, with kind and personalised care, but medicines and some safety checks required improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced planned visit on 7 August 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, a relative, a visitor, the manager and a senior care assistant. They also checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
People were described as safe, well cared for and treated with kindness. Staff provided personalised support, respected people's choices and offered activities. Food, training, health support and communication were also found to be good.
The main problems were with medicine stock records, an overdue bath hoist inspection and a fire evacuation procedure that was not detailed enough. The process for some Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications also needed improvement. End of life care planning needed further development.
The overall rating was Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, while Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Caring had improved to Outstanding and Well-led had improved from Requires Improvement since the previous inspection.
Kind, respectful care
Inspectors saw warm and genuine relationships between staff and people living in the home. Staff treated people as individuals and supported their dignity and independence.
“During our visit, we saw that people were treated with respect and kindness at all times.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, routines and communication needs. Staff understood what mattered to each person and adapted support accordingly.
“People's care plans contained information about their likes, dislikes and wishes and staff had guidance on how each person liked to be cared for.” from the report
Good health support
The home acted promptly when people's health changed and worked with health and social care professionals. Medicines were reviewed regularly by GPs.
“Records showed that proactive and prompt action was taken in response to people's ill health or changing support needs.” from the report
Choice and activities
People had choices about food, activities and how they spent their time. Their suggestions were sought, and they could choose not to join activities.
“We saw that people took part in a range of activities of their choosing.” from the report
Improved management
Management and governance had improved since the previous inspection. The manager was visible, responsive to feedback and involved in day-to-day care.
“At this inspection we found that sufficient improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulations.” from the report
Medicine stock records
seriousRecords for some 'as and when required' medicines did not always match the amount in stock. This made it difficult to confirm that the correct amount remained available.
“The amount of medication recorded as in stock was not always correct.” from the report
Safety checks and fire procedure
seriousThe bath hoist inspection was overdue, and the written fire evacuation procedure was too vague. The manager said these issues would be addressed promptly.
“An inspection of the home's bath chair to ensure it was safe to lift people in and out of the bath was overdue.” from the report
Legal safeguards process
needs fixingFurther work was needed to ensure the Mental Capacity Act was followed fully when applying for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
“Some improvements to the way this process was undertaken were required however to ensure that the MCA was fully followed.” from the report
End of life planning
minorPeople's wishes about end of life care were not yet clearly recorded in enough detail. No one was receiving end of life care during the inspection.
“End of life care planning needed further development however to ensure that people's needs and wishes were clearly documented.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicine stock records always match the medicines held in the home?
- 02Has the bath hoist been inspected and confirmed safe for use?
- 03What changes have been made to the written fire evacuation procedure?
- 04How do you make sure Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications follow the full legal process?
- 05How are people's end of life wishes recorded and kept up to date?
This was a planned inspection of the care home covering all five key questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous Regulation 17 breach had been resolved. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 September 2019 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 Merseyview Residential Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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.