CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 60 Park Road South
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection prevention and control safely. This included visitors, admissions, PPE, testing, hygiene, social distancing and outbreak procedures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Potensial Limited - 60 Park Road South was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control measures were safe.
The inspection took place on 14 December 2020. It was an announced, targeted inspection because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes. It looked at infection prevention and control measures.
Inspectors were assured about visiting arrangements, social distancing, shielding, personal protective equipment, testing, hygiene and the home's plans for preventing or managing outbreaks. They also found safe plans for new admissions, including a negative COVID-19 test and 14 days of self-isolation.
The overall service was inspected but not rated. The Safe question was also inspected but not rated. This report does not give ratings for the other areas of care.
Safe visiting
Visits were limited to essential visitors, with arrangements for people receiving end-of-life care where visiting was considered in their best interests.
“The service followed safe visiting procedures. Visits were restricted to essential visitors only.” from the report
Protective equipment
The home kept suitable PPE supplies and staff used and disposed of PPE correctly.
“Stocks of the right standard of personal protective equipment (PPE) were well maintained and staff used and disposed of it correctly.” from the report
Testing and screening
Visitors had temperature checks and health screening, while people living in the home and staff could access regular testing.
“People and staff had access to regular testing.” from the report
Admission planning
The home had procedures for admitting people safely, including a negative COVID-19 test and 14 days of self-isolation.
“There was then a requirement for people to self-isolate for 14 days.” from the report
Communication and staff support
The registered manager and staff kept in regular contact with families and supported staff wellbeing during the pandemic.
“The registered manager supported staff with their well-being during the pandemic with supervision, informal chats and with help if staff were anxious.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are essential visits and visits for people receiving end-of-life care arranged now?
- 02What happens if a new resident tests positive or needs to self-isolate after admission?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested, and how are the results managed?
- 04Who is the COVID-19 lead on each shift, and how are staff checks completed before they start work?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, so it did not rate the overall service or the other care questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 January 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.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Potensial Limited - 60 Park Road South was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with one situation needing clearer best-interests records.
Inspectors visited on 22 and 27 March 2018. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with six people living at the home and seven staff, reviewed records, checked the building and watched how staff supported people.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and liked living there. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements, a clean environment and support plans that encouraged choice, independence and community activities.
The home had remained Good since the previous inspection. Inspectors found no serious risks or concerns and said the home met all relevant fundamental standards. They did identify one situation where staff had different understandings about a person's best interests and how this should be recorded.
Enough staff
Inspectors found sufficient staff to support people both at home and in the community. Staffing levels varied according to people's planned activities and support needs.
“There were sufficient staff to provide support for people in the community and at the home.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded through a clear system. The stocks checked were correct.
“All checked stocks were correct which indicated that people received their medication as prescribed.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff were seen treating people with kindness and respect. People said they were listened to and not judged.
“They don't judge me, or make me feel embarrassed. They support me when I am down, with random stuff.” from the report
Building independence
Support was focused on helping people make choices, learn skills and become more independent, while managing risks sensibly.
“People's support was progressive, with opportunities for learning explored when people's support plans were periodically reviewed.” from the report
Positive leadership
The manager was described as approachable and supportive. Inspectors found a culture focused on people's individual needs and progress.
“The registered manager had a clear ethos of valuing people and having person centred approaches which were reflected in the culture of the service.” from the report
Different approaches to one decision
needs fixingIn one situation, staff gave different accounts of how they supported a person. The report says there was confusion about what was in the person's best interests and how this had been recorded. The manager said it would be reviewed straight away.
“In one situation there was confusion around what was in a person's best interests and how this had been documented and explored.” from the report
- 01How do you now record best-interests decisions, and how do you make sure every staff member follows the same approach?
- 02How are staffing levels decided when people have different activities or support needs in the community?
- 03How will you support my relative to build independence while keeping risks under review?
- 04How are support plans reviewed when a person's needs, goals or level of anxiety changes?
- 05How can my relative raise a concern or complaint, and how will we be kept informed of the outcome?
This was an inspection of all five quality areas, with the overall Good rating unchanged from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 June 2018 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 60 Park Road South
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
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.