CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Nazareth House - Crosby
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Rated Good; inspectors were assured about infection control, but this was a targeted inspection and Safe was not rated.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 20 November 2020. Inspectors carried out a targeted review of infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleanliness and outbreaks safely. They were also assured that the infection control policy was up to date.
The report highlights practical steps such as opening windows, placing coffee tables between lounge chairs and using an intercom for window visits. The overall service rating was Good, but Safe was inspected and not rated.
Social distancing
The home used the layout of its lounges to help people keep apart.
“Social distancing was promoted by the placement of coffee tables between chairs in lounges.” from the report
Ventilation
Windows were opened throughout the building to improve ventilation.
“Additional ventilation was provided by the opening of windows throughout the building.” from the report
Window visits
The home used an intercom to make visits safer and easier to access.
“Window visits were made more secure and accessible through the use of an intercom system.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently kept safe from catching or spreading infections?
- 02How do you currently provide and check protective equipment for staff?
- 03How are people admitted safely, and what testing is carried out for new residents?
- 04What arrangements are in place to prevent or manage an infection outbreak?
- 05Is the infection prevention and control policy still up to date?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; Safe was inspected but not rated, and the other areas were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 December 2020 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, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some dementia-friendly décor still needing improvement.
Inspectors visited on 9 and 13 May 2019. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, clean surroundings, good care planning and kind support that respected people's dignity and choices.
There was one clear area for improvement. Some ground-floor doors and walls were the same colour, which could make it harder for people living with dementia to tell them apart. The report also says the home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Requires improvement.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm and that medicines were managed safely. This was an improvement from the previous inspection.
“People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Legal requirements were met.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity, independence and personal choices.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, likes, dislikes and routines. People and relatives were involved in planning and reviewing care.
“Care plans were detailed and had clear information about specific needs, and personal preferences.” from the report
Good management checks
The home had improved its quality monitoring. Audits were completed regularly and identified actions were followed up.
“There was an effective system in place for checking on the quality and safety of the service and making improvements.” from the report
Choice and activities
People could choose how to spend their day, what to eat and which activities to join. Inspectors saw an activity involving duckling eggs that brought joy to many people.
“People we spoke with told us they could choose how to spend their day and felt staff knew them well.” from the report
Dementia-friendly décor
minorSome ground-floor doors and walls were the same colour. Inspectors said this could make it difficult for people living with dementia to tell doors and walls apart.
“We found the décor in some parts of the home could be improved to support people living with dementia.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the ground-floor doors and walls to make the home easier for people living with dementia to navigate?
- 02How are medicines records checked now, following the improvements identified since the previous inspection?
- 03How often are care plans reviewed, and how are people's changing preferences and routines recorded?
- 04What activities are currently available, and how do you make sure people can choose whether to take part?
- 05How do you decide how many staff are needed on each shift, and what happens if a shift is short-staffed?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the first day unannounced and the second day announced; the previous Requires improvement ratings were reassessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 June 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 Nazareth House - Crosby
6 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2019Goodup from Requires improvement
- May 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 April 2012.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Sefton
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 £1,270 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“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.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.