CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Poplars Resource Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People and relatives said they felt safe. Staffing, recruitment, medicines, safeguarding and infection control were found to be good, although some risk descriptions did not match the risk screening document.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff assessed people's needs, received regular training and worked with health professionals. People had choices about food and were supported to make decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions and supported to maintain and develop their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and communication styles. Staff knew people's histories and adapted care, including by keeping the same room and staff for one person who experienced anxiety.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers and staff promoted person-centred care and used audits, reports and feedback to improve the service. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to share their views.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Sefton New Directions Limited - Poplars Resource Centre was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and person-centred respite care, with some risk records needing clearer information.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 10 June 2019. One inspector spoke with two people using the home, four relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files, audits and other records.
The home provides short-stay respite care for up to nine people with physical and learning disabilities. Three people were staying there during the inspection. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices and maintain their independence.
Medicines, staffing, infection control and safeguarding arrangements were found to be good. Staff received training and worked with health professionals. The home was clean and managers used audits and feedback to improve care.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published on 20 December 2016.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about how staff treated them. Inspectors saw staff speaking with kindness and respect.
“We saw a number of examples where staff spoke to people with kindness and respect throughout the inspection.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines were administered by trained staff whose competence was checked regularly. Records were completed correctly and audited.
“Medicines were well managed and there was only one reported medicines' error in the previous 12 months.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's histories, preferences and communication styles. Care was adjusted to meet individual needs.
“Staff knew people's personal histories and their likes and dislikes.” from the report
Training and improvement
Staff received regular training and supervision, including training for specialist health needs. Managers used audits and lessons from incidents to improve practice.
“The provider placed continuous learning and improvement at the heart of their practice.” from the report
Risk records were not always clear
needs fixingInspectors found that some risk descriptions differed from the risk screening document, making the records harder to assess. This was discussed with the registered manager.
“However, some records were difficult to assess because the descriptions of risk were different from the risk screen document.” from the report
The buildings are larger than current guidance suggests
minorThe home is larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the design and surrounding homes helped reduce any negative impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01How have you made sure that risk descriptions now match the risk screening document?
- 02What refurbishment work was planned, and has it now been completed?
- 03How do you decide which building and room is suitable for each person, including the mix of people staying at the same time?
- 04What specialist training do staff have for the health conditions and equipment relevant to my relative?
- 05How will you keep staffing consistent when regular bank staff are needed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the care, premises and management of the home, with all five CQC areas rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 July 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.
What inspectors found, December 2016
Sefton New Directions Limited - Poplars Resource Centre was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor environmental work still planned.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 October 2016. The inspector visited the main house and bungalow, observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicine, staff and quality records.
The home supported people with learning disabilities or autism, mainly for planned or emergency short breaks. Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs, supported choice and communicated respectfully. Medicines, staffing, safeguarding, recruitment and risk assessments were managed safely.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The previous inspection in February 2014 found no breaches of legal requirements.
Safe staffing
Staffing was reviewed according to people's needs, risks, compatibility and planned activities. Inspectors found enough staff available during the visit.
“There were enough staff employed to help make sure people were cared for flexibly and in a safe manner.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff knew people's preferences and communication methods. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy and dignity while offering support and encouragement.
“We observed staff respecting people's privacy and dignity throughout our visit and they gave the necessary support, space and encouragement when needed.” from the report
Personalised activities
People helped plan their daily activities and short breaks. Activities reflected their interests, including trips out and social time with friends.
“All of the people we saw had daily activity which they were involved with planning, and which reflected their interests.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used regular checks, audits, surveys and feedback to monitor care and identify improvements.
“The service had an effective quality assurance system in place with various checks and audit tools to show consistent good practices within the service.” from the report
Environmental work still pending
minorSome areas needed further redecoration after building work and wear from wheelchair use. Kitchen worktops also needed replacing, although the report says they had been purchased.
“We saw that the kitchen work tops needed to be replaced and were told that they had been purchased, ready to be installed.” from the report
No detailed action plan seen
minorInspectors were told about planned maintenance but did not see a detailed action plan. Families may wish to check what work has since been completed.
“although we did not see a detailed action plan.” from the report
- 01Have the kitchen worktops and the planned redecoration now been completed?
- 02How will you match staffing levels and staff skills to my relative's needs, risks and planned activities?
- 03How will you check and record any changes to my relative's medicines before and during a short break?
- 04What communication methods will staff use if my relative does not communicate verbally?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing the care plan before each stay?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with observations, discussions and records reviewed during one visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 December 2016 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 Poplars Resource Centre
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 December 2010.
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.