CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Segal Gardens
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention and control arrangements, including PPE, testing, visiting and safe admissions. They were only somewhat assured about the premises because a rusty bathroom radiator had not been found by the home's auditing checks.
- Effective?
- Outstanding
- 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 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found mostly effective infection controls, but identified a rusty radiator that had not been picked up by checks.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 14 January 2022. Inspectors gave 24 hours' notice and looked at infection prevention, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors were assured about most infection control arrangements. These included visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, infection outbreaks, vaccination checks and visiting arrangements.
They were only somewhat assured about the building's layout and hygiene checks. A rusty radiator was found in a bathroom and had not been identified through the home's audits. The home planned to fix it and was directed to local infection prevention and control support.
The service was inspected but not rated. This was not a full assessment of all five areas of care, so the report does not give an overall Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
Infection control knowledge
The home understood when to seek advice from local infection prevention and control resources.
“The service demonstrated a good understanding of when and how to access local Infection Prevention Control resources” from the report
COVID-19 arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering visitors, PPE, testing, admissions, outbreaks and visiting.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Vaccination checks
The home was meeting the requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
“The service was meeting the requirement to ensure non-exempt staff and visiting professionals were vaccinated against COVID-19.” from the report
Rusty bathroom radiator
needs fixingInspectors found a rusty radiator in a bathroom. It had not been identified through the home's auditing process, although the home planned to fix it after the inspection.
“During the inspection we saw a rusty radiator in a bathroom.” from the report
- 01Has the rusty bathroom radiator now been repaired, and how was the repair checked?
- 02How often are the home's infection prevention and control audits carried out?
- 03What changes have been made to make sure environmental problems are identified promptly?
- 04How are COVID-19-related staffing pressures being managed at present?
- 05How are visits, testing, PPE and vaccination checks being managed under current arrangements?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 January 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 2021
Segal Gardens was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 22 January 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found good practice in helping people understand COVID-19 and manage their personal hygiene. The home used easy-read information and other communication methods.
Inspectors were assured about visiting arrangements, testing, personal protective equipment, hygiene, social distancing and decisions not to accept new admissions. They gave extra guidance about disposing of used protective equipment.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give a new overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five areas.
Supporting understanding
Staff helped people understand the pandemic and supported them to manage their own personal hygiene. They used easy-read reports and other communication methods.
“Staff had carried out work with people living in the home to develop their knowledge and understanding around the COVID-19 pandemic” from the report
Safe visiting
The home followed visiting procedures intended to reduce infection risks. When visits were not possible, people were supported to keep in touch by telephone and video calls.
“The service followed safe visiting procedures to minimise the spread of infection.” from the report
Protective equipment and training
Staff had infection control training and access to suitable protective equipment.
“Staff had received training in infection prevention and control (IPC) and had access to appropriate levels of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Testing and infection control
The home used available COVID-19 testing and adjusted the process around people's individual needs. Inspectors were assured that infection control measures were being followed.
“We were assured the service was following safe infection prevention and control measures to help keep people safe.” from the report
Disposal of protective equipment
minorInspectors gave extra guidance about making the disposal of used protective equipment more robust. The provider responded by buying suitable waste disposal items.
“The provider acted on advice given regarding more robust processes for the safe disposal of PPE and purchased appropriate waste disposal items.” from the report
- 01How are visits currently managed to reduce infection risks?
- 02How do you support people who find testing or infection control procedures difficult?
- 03What arrangements are now in place for the safe disposal of used protective equipment?
- 04Are new admissions being accepted, and how are complex needs assessed before admission?
- 05How do people keep in contact with family if an in-person visit is not possible?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; it did not rate the overall service or the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 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 Segal Gardens
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of St. Helens
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. 92 can care for a couple. 10 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.