CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Northern Counties Eventide Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; care was kind and generally safe, but checks of records and medicines were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 05 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People said they felt safe and received kind care. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and provided activities, outings and suitable food.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement because the home was still not well-led. Checks did not always identify incomplete or inaccurate care records, and medicine audits were not always completed regularly.
The previous overall rating was also Requires Improvement. The home had improved and was no longer in breach of Regulation 12, but it remained in breach of Regulation 17. CQC said it would monitor progress and return to inspect again.
Kind, familiar staff
Staff knew people well and had built trusting relationships. The inspection found a friendly and caring atmosphere.
“Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. There was a stable staff team who knew people well and what mattered to them.” from the report
People felt safe
People said they felt safe. Staffing levels, recruitment and safeguarding arrangements were suitable.
“People said they felt safe living in the home; their comments included, "Feel safe oh yes" and "Yes I feel safe here. Everyone is very good".” from the report
Personalised support
People's routines, preferences and communication needs were recorded. Staff supported people to make choices and maintain their independence.
“There was a strong and visible person-centred culture with staff going out of their way to ensure that people were respected as individuals.” from the report
Activities and links with the community
The home arranged daily activities, minibus outings and support for people to follow their faith.
“Activities and experiences were arranged each day for people to avoid social isolation.” from the report
Improved medicines practice
The home had improved how it recorded homely medicines and thickener, and people received medicines safely and on time.
“The recording of homely medicines and the use of thickener in drinks on medicine administration records were now routinely completed.” from the report
Care records were not fully reliable
needs fixingSome records were incomplete or inaccurate. One care plan did not reflect a change in health, and the required oral health assessment had not been completed.
“a person's care plan for mobility and nutrition had not been written to reflect a change in their health; their current support needs were recorded in the update.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe provider's audits did not check care records comprehensively or identify concerns consistently. CQC said this placed people at risk of harm and breached Regulation 17.
“The provider audit process did not include a comprehensive check of care records to ensure they reflected people's current needs and that all necessary assessments were completed in a timely way.” from the report
Medicine audits were not regular enough
needs fixingDaily stock checks were completed, but a weekly check covering all parts of the medicines process had not been completed in January 2020.
“Medication audits were completed and had made administration safer; daily checks of stock were completed but weekly checks of all aspect of the administration process had not been completed in January 2020.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure every care record reflects people's current needs and risks?
- 02How do you now check that required assessments, including oral health assessments, are completed and updated?
- 03How often are full medicines audits now completed, and who checks that any problems are corrected?
- 04What action did you submit to CQC after the Regulation 17 breach, and what progress has been made?
- 05How will you show families that the home is ready to improve its overall rating to Good?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that assessed all five key questions and looked at both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 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, February 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but unsafe medicine recording and weak quality checks.
Inspectors visited on 15 and 16 January 2019. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They also checked care records, medicine records, recruitment files, policies and the building.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive care. People were treated with respect, involved in their care and supported with their health, food, activities and personal choices. Families said staff were caring and approachable.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found gaps in records for creams, as-needed medicines and thickening agent in drinks. Quality checks had not found these problems, and there were no audits of some care records and risk assessments.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. This was the first time the home received this rating, compared with Good at the previous inspection in June 2016. The provider was in breach of Regulations 12 and 17.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw genuine, compassionate interactions. Staff supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“We observed compassionate and warm interactions between staff and people living at the home.” from the report
Good health and food support
Staff referred people to health professionals and supported them to attend appointments. Staff knew about dietary needs, and people could choose alternatives to the menu.
“Staff were knowledgeable about people's dietary requirements and preferences.” from the report
Family involvement and activities
Relatives could visit freely and were involved in care decisions. People had regular activities and community outings.
“The home provided activities every morning and afternoon.” from the report
Medicine records were incomplete
seriousRecords did not always show that topical medicines had been given. Times for some as-needed medicines were not recorded, and some people lacked clear instructions for using them.
“This meant that people were not receiving their topical medication as prescribed.” from the report
Thickening agent was not recorded
seriousThe use of thickening agent in drinks was not recorded on fluid charts. This made it unclear whether it had been added for people with swallowing difficulties.
“Although staff were aware of how much thickener to add to people's fluids, the use of thickener was not being recorded on people's fluid input charts.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousThere were no audits of care plans, daily records and risk assessments. Existing checks had not identified the medicine problems found by inspectors.
“The audits we did review were up to date but were not always effective as they had not identified areas of concern highlighted during our inspection.” from the report
Out-of-date policies
needs fixingSome policies had not been reviewed since 2015 and did not reflect current guidance or good practice.
“However, policies had not been reviewed since 2015 and some did not reflect current guidance and best practice.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment needed
minorInspectors said parts of the building needed adapting for people living with dementia, including clearer bedroom identification and less confusing flooring.
“We found that the environment required further adaption to make it more suitable to the needs and requirements of people living with dementia.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure topical medicines and as-needed medicines are recorded at the time they are given?
- 02How do you now record thickening agent in drinks, and how do you check that the prescribed amount is used?
- 03What audits now check care plans, daily records and risk assessments?
- 04Have all medicine storage temperatures been recorded daily, and what was the outcome of the planned pharmacy visit and staff training?
- 05Which policies have been updated since the inspection, and what changes have been made to make the home more suitable for people living with dementia?
This was a two-day inspection of all five key questions, with the first day unannounced; the previous inspection in June 2016 rated the home Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 February 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 Northern Counties Eventide Home Limited
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2020Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Northern Counties Eventide Home Limited →
- February 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Northern Counties Eventide Home Limited →
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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
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.