CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Paul Murphy Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Paul Murphy Centre is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care but medicines records were not always safe.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 25 and 27 May 2023, spoke with relatives, people using the home and staff, and checked care records, medicine records, recruitment files and management audits.
People received kind, person-centred support. Staff knew people well, responded to their needs and supported them to make choices. Relatives gave very positive feedback. Staffing, safeguarding, risk checks and infection control were found to be suitable.
The main problem was medicines recording and administration. Staff did not always follow the home's procedures. Records were sometimes incomplete or not made at the time medicines were given, so inspectors could not be assured that medicines were always given safely as prescribed.
The overall rating remains Requires Improvement. The home breached Regulation 12 about safe care and treatment. It had improved enough to no longer breach Regulation 17 about governance, but inspectors still recommended stronger checks of medicines management.
Kind, individual care
People were supported in a person-centred way. Staff responded to individual needs and helped people make choices.
“People received kind and person-centred care. Staff responded to individuals needs well and supported them in a person centred manner.” from the report
Good relationships and outcomes
People were happy and supported to do things they wanted. The report also gave examples of people moving to more independent settings.
“People living at the home were happy and doing things they wanted to. Staff interactions were person centred.” from the report
Involvement and partnership working
The home involved people, relatives and professionals. It used feedback to make changes, including introducing a quiet floor.
“The provider engaged with people, relatives and professionals.” from the report
Medicines records and administration
seriousMedicine records were not always dated, completed when medicines were given or consistently made when medicines arrived. Old paperwork also increased the risk of mistakes.
“This meant that we could not be assured that medicines were given safely as prescribed.” from the report
Management checks did not find the problem
needs fixingThe home's regular audits did not identify the medicines issues found during inspection. Inspectors recommended improving governance systems.
“We recommend the service improves their governance systems to ensure any medication concerns are identified and addressed.” from the report
- 01What new systems are now used to make sure medicine records are dated and completed when each medicine is given?
- 02How do managers check that medicines received by the home are recorded accurately?
- 03How are old medicine documents removed so staff do not rely on out-of-date information?
- 04What evidence can you show that your new medicines checks have continued to work since the inspection?
- 05How will the incoming manager oversee medicines safety and respond if an audit finds a problem?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection published on 27 March 2021. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 September 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, March 2021
Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe care in several areas but serious gaps in fire checks and management oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 11 and 19 March 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led because concerns had been raised about medicines, staffing and management. They observed care, spoke with relatives and staff, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was clean, medicines were given as prescribed, staffing levels were suitable and relatives said people were safe. Risks were assessed and staff had guidance to manage known risks. However, regular fire safety checks had not been completed since November 2020, and fire drills had not taken place since June 2019.
Management oversight and quality checks were not robust. The registered manager and other senior staff had left, audits had not been completed for a long period, and some staff competency checks and formal meetings were not regular. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
Medicines
People received their medicines as prescribed. Records and stock were checked regularly, with action plans for problems found.
“People received their medicines as prescribed. Guidelines were in place for when any medicines not routinely administered were to be used.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks had been completed before new staff started.
“New staff were safely recruited, with all pre-employment checks being made before the staff started working at the Paul Murphy Centre.” from the report
Infection control
The home had updated COVID-19 policies, suitable protective equipment and regular testing arrangements. Separate lounges and staff allocation helped keep respite users separate from people living at the home.
“Policies and risk assessments had been updated to take into account COVID-19. Suitable PPE was available and used appropriately.” from the report
Communication with families
Relatives told inspectors that communication was good, they felt listened to and they felt their relatives were safe.
“Relatives we spoke with were all positive about the Paul Murphy Centre. They said communication was good, they felt listened to” from the report
Fire safety checks
seriousWeekly and monthly checks of fire alarms, doors, extinguishers and emergency lighting had not been completed since November 2020. Fire drills had not been held since June 2019, creating a safety risk.
“Fire drills had not been held since June 2019. This meant the service had not checked the fire safety system was in working order.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThere had been no robust provider oversight. The Operations Manager had not completed audits since September 2019, and senior management was not aware of this.
“We found the Operations Manager had not completed any audits of the service since September 2019. The senior management team were not aware of this.” from the report
Quality assurance
needs fixingThe quality assurance system was not robust. Some care plan checks, staff competency observations and formal staff meetings or supervisions were not completed regularly.
“The quality assurance system was not robust. The deputy manager reviewed a range of records, including incidents, accidents medicines and falls each month.” from the report
Management vacancy
needs fixingThere was no manager registered with CQC when inspectors visited. A recently recruited manager had left without applying to become registered.
“The service did not have a manager in post registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
- 01When were the fire alarm, fire doors, fire extinguishers and emergency lighting last checked?
- 02When was the last fire drill, and how often are fire drills now carried out?
- 03Who is currently responsible for management oversight and quality audits?
- 04How are care plans and staff competencies checked by someone independent of the person who completed them?
- 05What progress has been made on the action plan requested after the Regulation 17 breach?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were not inspected and were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 March 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 Paul Murphy Centre
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- September 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2019GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 October 2018.
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 Manchester
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. 89 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.