CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Trepassey Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control. They found arrangements for PPE, testing, cleaning, distancing, safe admissions and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 21 January 2021. It looked at how the home was preventing and controlling infection during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found good practice. Staff had infection control training, used protective equipment, followed distancing rules and carried out regular cleaning. The home had procedures for testing, safe admissions and managing possible outbreaks.
Visiting was not taking place because of government restrictions at the time. The home had visiting pods ready and helped people keep in touch with relatives using technology and regular updates.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
Infection control training
Staff had received infection prevention and control training, including how to use protective equipment. Inspectors saw PPE being used.
“Staff had received IPC training, including the correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and we saw this in use.” from the report
Cleaning arrangements
Regular cleaning schedules were in place and were being followed.
“Regular cleaning schedules had been developed and were adhered to by a team of housekeeping staff.” from the report
Safe visiting arrangements
The home had created visiting pods with screens and an intercom. Although visits were not taking place at the time, staff supported contact through technology and updates.
“Visiting pods had been developed to enable safe, socially distanced visiting with plastic screens and an intercom system.” from the report
Safe admissions
The home had procedures for admitting people safely. Bedrooms with en-suite facilities could support self-isolation when needed.
“Safe procedures were in place for admitting people into the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How are PPE use, staff training and testing managed and checked?
- 03How would you manage an infection outbreak in the home?
- 04How can relatives visit now, and what happens if visits have to be restricted?
- 05How will my relative keep in contact with family if face-to-face visits are not possible?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; the service was inspected but not rated and the other four questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 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.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but safety checks and some medicines arrangements needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 3 and 4 May 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and the manager. They looked at care records, medicines, staff recruitment and the home itself.
People told inspectors they felt safe and were treated kindly. Staff knew people well, respected their privacy, supported their choices and helped them stay independent. Care plans were detailed and activities, complaints handling and health support were found to be good.
Safety was rated Requires Improvement. A fire risk assessment for the new building had not been completed before people moved in, balcony risks had not been assessed, and some medicines checks and guidance were missing. The home had enough staff and medicines were generally administered safely.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found the home provided good care in most areas, but it was not consistently safe in every respect. The previous concerns about water temperatures and quality checks had been addressed, and the provider was no longer in breach of those regulations.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff supporting people calmly and compassionately. Privacy, dignity and consent were respected.
“Staff were kind and caring and treated people with respect.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Plans described people's routines, preferences, histories and support needs. They were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“Care plans were detailed and reflected people's current needs.” from the report
Good staffing and safeguarding
There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs, and staff understood how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people's needs and help maintain their safety.” from the report
Improved management checks
The provider had introduced new audits and acted on feedback. This was an improvement since the previous inspection.
“New audits had been created and they identified areas for improvement.” from the report
Fire and balcony risks
seriousPeople moved into the new building before its fire risk assessment was completed. Balcony risks had also not been assessed before use, creating a risk of falls.
“a fire risk assessment of the new building had not yet been completed.” from the report
PRN medicines guidance
seriousThere was no written guidance explaining when some medicines should be given as needed. Inspectors said this created a risk that a person might not receive medicine when needed.
“there were no protocols in place to guide staff when to administer PRN medicines” from the report
Medicine storage checks
needs fixingTemperatures were not checked where some PRN medicines were stored in people's rooms. Incorrect temperatures can affect how medicines work.
“There were no temperature checks made on these medicines.” from the report
Staff supervision and appraisals
needs fixingNot all staff had received formal supervision, and annual appraisals had not been completed. The manager said arrangements would be put in place.
“not all staff had received a formal supervision in 2018 and no annual appraisals had been completed.” from the report
- 01Has the fire risk assessment for the new building been completed, and what actions did it identify?
- 02How are balcony doors and access managed now, and how are risks of falls from height assessed for each person?
- 03What written protocols are now in place for PRN medicines, including medicines used when someone becomes agitated?
- 04How are temperatures checked for medicines stored in people's rooms?
- 05How often will staff now receive supervision and annual appraisals?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating; 12 people were living in the home at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 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 Trepassey Residential Home
4 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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
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.