CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 7-9 Park Road South
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were managed through testing, protective equipment, cleaning, hand sanitiser and outbreak procedures. The provider also described measures to reduce the impact of COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not rated in this targeted inspection, although inspectors noted regular infection control audits and provider oversight of infection prevention and control.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Potensial Limited - 7-9 Park Road South was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and visiting arrangements.
Inspectors visited on 4 February 2022 with two hours' notice. This was a targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic. It focused on infection prevention, infection control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures.
The home had checks for visitors, including vaccination evidence or an exemption, rapid testing and temperature checks. Staff and visitors had protective equipment, and people received information in an easy-read format where needed.
Inspectors found regular testing, enhanced cleaning, infection control audits and up-to-date policies. They were assured that the home could prevent and manage outbreaks, and that visiting followed current government guidance.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give a new overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas.
Visitor safety
The home used entry checks, including vaccination evidence or an exemption, rapid testing and temperature checks. Protective equipment was available for visitors.
“A signing in process on entry into the home ensured necessary COVID-19 checks were completed.” from the report
Cleaning and protective equipment
Staff had enough protective equipment, hand sanitiser was available and used equipment was disposed of safely. The home also carried out enhanced cleaning and recorded cleaning tasks.
“Enhanced cleaning and disinfection took place throughout the home to reduce the risk of the spread of infection.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
Routine COVID-19 testing was in place for people using the service and staff. The home followed guidance when outbreaks occurred and supported people to isolate when needed.
“COVID-19 outbreaks followed current guidance and advice from the infection prevention and control team to contain and manage outbreaks.” from the report
Up-to-date infection control systems
The home had current policies, procedures, risk assessments and guidance. Infection control audits were completed regularly and the provider monitored these arrangements.
“Regular infection control audits were completed and the provider had oversight of infection prevention and control processes.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing staffing pressures linked to COVID-19, and what impact has this had on people's care?
- 02What are the current rules for family visits, testing and protective equipment?
- 03How often are people and staff tested for COVID-19 now?
- 04What would happen if there was an infection outbreak in the home?
- 05How do you provide infection control information in an easy-read format for people who need it?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not rate the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 March 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, January 2020
Potensial Limited - 7-9 Park Road South was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some smaller issues about food choice, cleanliness and activities.
Inspectors visited on 17 and 22 October 2019. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with eight people, one relative and five staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were supported to make choices, build skills and become more independent. Staff were described as kind, respectful and familiar with people's needs.
Inspectors found some issues that needed attention. There was limited choice on the displayed menu, one meal did not match the menu, one bathroom was unclean, and some people wanted more opportunities to visit places of interest. A staff absence was not replaced on the first inspection day.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in October 2018. The home had previously breached regulations about consent and governance, but inspectors found enough improvement had been made and there were no current breaches.
Kind and respectful staff
People and a relative said staff were kind and treated people well. Staff respected privacy and personal space.
“People told staff treated them well and were kind.” from the report
More independence
People were supported to gain skills, take part in household tasks and work towards their own goals.
“People were supported to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff responsible for medicines were trained and assessed as competent. Records showed medicines were given at the right times.
“People's medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely.” from the report
Improved consent records
Consent forms included information about people's decision-making capacity and showed their involvement. This addressed the previous consent breach.
“Consent forms were regularly reviewed, signed and dated.” from the report
Better quality checks
The provider had improved its monitoring systems and used them to identify and act on problems.
“Checks were now carried out in line with the providers quality monitoring systems” from the report
Limited food choice
needs fixingThe displayed menu offered only one main meal. On the first day, people were given sandwiches and crisps instead of the listed pasta salad.
“A menu was on display in the dining room, however it showed limited choice, with just one main meal to choose from.” from the report
Bathroom cleanliness
minorOne person's ensuite bathroom was unclean and smelt unpleasant. Staff addressed this after inspectors raised it.
“one person's ensuite bathroom was unclean and smelt unpleasant.” from the report
Staff absence
needs fixingA staff member called in sick at short notice on the first inspection day and was not replaced. A domestic staff member was available for emergency support.
“However, on the first day of inspection a member of staff had called in sick at short notice and was not replaced.” from the report
Community activities
minorSome people enjoyed activities such as cinema trips and concerts, but others wanted more opportunities to visit places of interest.
“However, others commented that they would like more opportunities to access places of interest in the community.” from the report
Building plans still needed
minorThe size of the home did not meet current best practice guidance. The provider planned to convert it into two smaller domestic-style properties, and some bedrooms needed redecoration.
“The size of service does not meet current best practice guidance for Registering the Right Support (RRS).” from the report
- 01What food choices are now offered at each meal, and how do you check that the meal served matches the menu?
- 02How do you make sure all bathrooms and bedrooms are cleaned and maintained every day?
- 03What is your plan when a staff member is absent at short notice, and how will people's support be maintained?
- 04What new opportunities are available for people who want more visits and activities in the community?
- 05What progress has been made with the plan to convert the home into two smaller domestic-style properties?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises; the visit followed a Requires Improvement rating at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 January 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 7-9 Park Road South
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 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.