CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 1 Newlands Drive
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Potensial Limited - 1 Newlands Drive was inspected but not rated; inspectors found mostly safe infection control during a COVID-19 outbreak, but hygiene was not consistent in some areas.
This was a planned, announced inspection on 1 February 2022. It was targeted at infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak, and also considered staffing pressures.
Inspectors found that the outbreak was safely managed. Visitors were given safety checks and updated visiting information. Staff had current infection control guidance, training and enough protective equipment. Testing records were kept, and non-exempt staff were vaccinated as required.
The inspectors were only somewhat assured about the cleanliness and layout of some areas. Good hygiene practices were not consistent, so the provider was directed to resources to improve its approach.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a full Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating for the home.
Outbreak management
The recent COVID-19 outbreak was managed in line with government guidance.
“The outbreak was safely managed in line with government guidance.” from the report
Safe visiting
Visitors were given updates and had to complete safety checks before entering.
“Before entering, visitors including visiting professionals were required to provide evidence of a negative lateral flow test, have their temperature checked and show their COVID-19 vaccination status.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had current infection control training, a good supply of protective equipment and used it safely.
“There was a good stock of PPE available to staff and they used and disposed of it safely.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
People living in the home and staff were tested regularly, with records maintained. All non-exempt employed staff were vaccinated in line with legal requirements.
“Regular testing for COVID-19 was carried out for people living at the home and staff and testing records were maintained.” from the report
Inconsistent hygiene
needs fixingInspectors were not fully assured about hygiene practices in some areas of the home. The provider was signposted to resources to improve this.
“Good hygiene practices were not consistent in some areas of the home.” from the report
- 01Which areas had inconsistent hygiene, and what changes have been made since the inspection?
- 02How do you check that cleaning and hygiene practices remain consistent throughout the home?
- 03How did COVID-19-related staffing pressures affect the people living here, and what measures were used to reduce the impact?
- 04How often are residents and staff tested, and how are testing records checked?
- 05What safety checks and booking arrangements currently apply to visitors?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak, with questions about staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 February 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, February 2020
Potensial Limited - 1 Newlands Drive was rated Good overall, but inspectors found quality checks were not always reliable and rated leadership Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 and 19 December 2019. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff, the manager and a relative. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People told inspectors they felt safe and staff were seen giving kind, person-centred care. Medicines were handled safely, people were supported with health needs, and activities were based on their interests.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Health and safety checks, service audits and reviews of people's risks were not always completed or effective at finding problems. The manager knew improvements were needed, and the report made a recommendation to strengthen quality assurance.
The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection. However, the well-led rating had fallen from Good to Requires Improvement.
Kind, person-centred care
Staff knew people well and adapted their support and communication to individual needs. People told inspectors staff were kind and supportive.
“We observed staff providing kind, compassionate and considerate care.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff were trained to support people with medicines. Their competency was checked twice a year, and medicines were stored and disposed of appropriately.
“Safe medication processes were in place.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, develop skills and take part in everyday activities. The home was adapted to support independence.
“People were empowered to make decisions, were involved in the care they received and encouraged to develop skills to support their independence.” from the report
Tailored activities
Activities reflected people's hobbies, interests and preferred places. Relatives were encouraged to visit, and people were supported to use local community facilities.
“Activities were tailored around each person receiving support.” from the report
Quality checks were incomplete
needs fixingSome health and safety checks and service audits were missing or did not identify issues found during the inspection. The report recommended stronger governance and quality assurance.
“Quality assurance measures were in place. However, these were not always completed as a way of monitoring and measuring the provision of care being delivered.” from the report
Risk reviews were not always recorded
needs fixingPeople's risks were being managed, but records did not always show that reviews had been completed as planned. The manager was reviewing and updating care records.
“Risk management review paperwork was not routinely completed.” from the report
Some training and staffing work remained
needs fixingStaffing levels had recently declined and agency staff were being used while recruitment took place. Some new-staff safeguarding training and refresher training were still outstanding.
“Staffing levels had recently declined but a recent recruitment drive meant that new staff were in the process of being recruited.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure monthly health and safety checks and service audits are completed every time?
- 02How often are people's risk assessments reviewed, and how do you check that the records are up to date?
- 03Which safeguarding, face-to-face and refresher training was outstanding at the inspection, and has it now been completed?
- 04How do you maintain safe staffing levels while recruitment is ongoing, and how do you make sure agency staff know each person's needs?
- 05How will you make sure people who need to stay busy have enough suitable activities each day?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, the overall quality of the service and both the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 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.
Every inspection of 1 Newlands Drive
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 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.