Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Croxteth Park Care Home, Mossway, Croxteth, Liverpool.

Croxteth Park Care Home in Mossway, Croxteth, Liverpool is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults over 65 yrs and dementia. The last inspection date here was 27th November 2019

Croxteth Park Care Home is managed by Lunan House Limited who are also responsible for 1 other location

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Croxteth Park Care Home
      Altcross Road
      Mossway
      Croxteth
      Liverpool
      L11 0BS
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01512866280
    Website:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Requires Improvement
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Requires Improvement
Overall:

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-11-27
    Last Published 2018-11-24

Local Authority:

    Liverpool

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

25th October 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place on 25 and 26 October and was unannounced.

Croxteth Park Care Home is registered to provide accommodation for up 42 people with personal care needs. Accommodation can be found across two separate units, each of which have separate adapted facilities. At the time of the inspection, 39 people were living at the home. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQQ to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The previous comprehensive inspection took place in March 2016. The home was awarded an overall rating of ‘Good’.

We then conducted a focused inspection in April 2017. We received information of concern from the Office of the Coroner relating to the management of falls and the assessment of people's capacity to consent to care. The focused inspection concentrated on three of the five key questions we inspect against; safe, effective and well-led domains. We found that the registered provider was complying with all Health and Social Care Act Regulations and the rating of ‘Good’ remained.

During this inspection, we identified breaches of regulation in relation to ‘Safe Care and Treatment’ and ‘Good Governance’. We are taking a number of appropriate actions to protect people who are living at Croxteth Park Care Home.

We found that people were exposed to environmental risks and were not always receiving safe care and treatment. A cleaning cupboard which contained harmful chemicals was accessible to people who lived at the home, dangerous items such as a pair of scissors and a sling aid was found in communal areas, a hot water urn was accessible to people who had been assessed as lacking capacity and not all fire doors were effectively closing within their door frames.

We checked to see how the quality and safety of the care people received was regularly monitored and assessed. We found that systems and processes were in place; however, these were not always effective. We found that health and safety audits and checks were not always completed and the issues we identified during the inspection had not been identified.

We checked to see if the registered provider was complying with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005. Mental capacity assessments were routinely carried and the necessary deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) were submitted to the local authority. However, we identified that capacity assessments were not always decision specific and people’s ‘consent’ paperwork was not always completed.

We have made a recommendation about the Mental Capacity Assessment processes and documentation.

Staff told us they were familiar with the needs of the people they supported, although records did not always contain sufficient information in relation to people’s social histories, preferences, interests and wishes.

We have made a recommendation about obtaining information to help staff provide person-centred care.

People were encouraged to engage in a range of different activities. Activities co-ordinators were in post; activities were arranged around people’s likes, interests and hobbies.

A complaints procedure was in place. People and relatives told us that they knew how to raise any concerns if they ever needed to. Complaints were responded to in accordance to organisational policy.

People’s risk was safely managed. Risk assessments contained up to date and relevant information and staff told us they were informed of any changes in people’s needs on a daily basis.

Medication processes were safely in place. Staff received medication administration training and there was an up to date medicati

24th April 2017 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

This unannounced focussed inspection was conducted on 24 April 2017.

Situated in North Liverpool and located close to public transport links, leisure and shopping facilities, Croxteth Park Care Home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 42 people with personal care needs. The location is a single storey property which is split into two separate units. One for people living with dementia and one for people with physical care needs. Each bedroom has its own en-suite facilities.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Prior to the inspection we had received information of concern from the Office of the Coroner relating to the management of falls’ risk and the assessment of people’s capacity to consent to care. This focussed inspection looked in detail at systems and practice in relation to people at risk of falls. This report is restricted to the safe, effective and well-led domains. The caring and responsive domains will be assessed as part of the next comprehensive inspection.

The initial assessment of risk in relation to falls was completed to a high standard and we saw that risk was reviewed monthly or following a significant incident. In each case, the records were clear and sufficiently detailed to alert staff to the potential risk and what action was required to reduce the frequency and impact of falls.

Risk was further reduced because the building was of a modern, single-storey design with open plan areas. This meant that staff could monitor people more easily. Each bedroom had a call-bell system so that people could call for assistance if they fell or needed support with other activities and daily tasks. Staff were vigilant in monitoring people’s movements and completed regular checks during the night to ensure people’ welfare and safety.

Where falls had occurred body maps were used to record any injuries and referrals were made in a timely manner to healthcare professionals and specialists for their advice and support around the management of people at risks of falls.

The Coroner’s report highlighted a potential issue regarding people’s capacity to consent to care and their right to refuse treatment. As part of the inspection we looked at how people’s capacity was assessed and recorded in relation to care, treatment and restrictions on their liberty. We looked in detail at the circumstances relating to one person’s alleged refusal to attend hospital for an x-ray.

The records that we saw showed that the home was operating in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Capacity assessments were focused on the needs of each individual.

The records relating to the person named in the Coroner’s report were complete and clearly demonstrated that the person did not have capacity to understand the implications of any refusal to attend hospital. The registered manager and deputy manager were clear about their responsibility to act in the best-interest of people living at Croxteth Park Care Home and to seek medical attention as required.

The higher than expected volume of falls required us to look at monitoring and audit systems to ensure that they were sufficiently robust to identify patterns and trends and promote people’s safety.

We looked at paper and electronic records relating to falls and spoke with the registered manager and deputy manager. The systems that we saw were both extensive and robust. Each incident and accident was recorded in a timely manner and entered on an electronic reporting system. The system generated an immediate alert to the registered manager and populated a spreadsheet which was accessed and monitored remotely by a dedicated saf

14th March 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This unannounced inspection was conducted on 14 March 2016.

Situated in North Liverpool and located close to public transport links, leisure and shopping facilities, Croxteth Park Care Home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 42 people with personal care needs. The location is a single storey property which is split into two separate units. One for people living with dementia and one for people with physical care needs. Each bedroom has its own en-suite facilities.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was in the process of returning to work following a period of leave and was not available on the day of the inspection.

During the course of the inspection we saw that staff provided care in a safe and compassionate manner. Each of the staff that we spoke with gave a good description of how they would respond if they suspected that one of the people living at the home was at risk of abuse or harm. People living at the home and their relatives told us that they knew how to complain if they needed to.

People living at the home had detailed care plans which included an assessment of risk. These were subject to regular review and contained sufficient detail to inform staff of risk factors and appropriate responses.

Accidents and incidents were accurately recorded on a dedicated electronic system and were subject to assessment to identify patterns and triggers. Records were detailed and included reference to actions taken following accidents and incidents.

Staffing numbers were adequate to meet the needs of people living at the home. The provider based staffing allocation on the completion of a dependency tool. We were provided with evidence that this information was reviewed following incidents where new behaviours were observed indicating increase dependency.

People’s medication was stored and administered in accordance with good practice guidance.

Staff were suitably trained and skilled to meet the needs of people living at the home. The staff we spoke with confirmed that they felt equipped for the role. New staff were trained and inducted in accordance with the principles of the care certificate.

The records that we saw showed that the home was operating in accordance with the principles of the MCA. Capacity assessments were not generic and were focused on the needs of each individual. Applications to deprive people of their liberty had been submitted appropriately.

Meals were provided by a specialist contractor and served in a well presented dining room. Issues had been identified regarding the choice of meals and portion sizes. The provider was in the processes of addressing these concerns with the contractor.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected throughout the inspection. We saw that staff were attentive to people’s need regarding personal care. People living at the home had access to their own room with en-suite facilities for the provision of personal care if required. Care was not provided routinely or according to a strict timetable. Staff were able to respond to people’s needs and provided care as it was required.

We saw staff actively involved in organising activities and motivating people to take part. The home displayed an activities board which detailed a varied programme of activities including music, movies, armchair games, hairdressing and a pamper session. We saw people engaging in chair-based exercises and discussing the visit of an entertainer.

The provider had systems in place to monitor safety and quality and to drive improvements. They completed a monthly audit which included information that was fed-back to the staff team. Are

5th June 2014 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

An adult social care inspector carried out this inspection. We did not announce our inspection prior to our visit. We set out to answer our five questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People who lived at the home told us they were treated with respect and dignity by staff. People told us they felt safe and that if they had any concerns they would raise these with staff or with the manager.

People were encouraged to make choices and to use their independence. At the time of our visit some people who used the service were unable to make their own decisions. The manager was aware of the action to take if they had concerns or issues with regards to a person’s capacity to make their own decisions. The Mental Capacity Act (2005) is legislation to protect and empower people who may not be able to make their own decisions, particularly about their health care, welfare or finances. Staff informed us that nobody was subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) application or plan at the time of our inspection. DoLS is part of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and aims to ensure people in care homes and hospitals are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom unless it is in their best interests.

People’s health, safety and welfare were protected in how the service was provided. People got the support they needed when they needed it and risks to people’s safety were managed.

Is the service effective?

People received the care and support they required to meet their needs and maintain their health and welfare. People's care and support had been reviewed on a regular basis and their individual care plans updated. People told us they felt listened to and included in decision making.

Is the service caring?

People who lived at the home told us staff were ‘good’ and ‘respectful’. Staff we spoke with were clear about their roles and responsibilities to promote people’s independence and respect their privacy and dignity. Staff were readily available to support people when they needed support and we saw that staff showed warmth and familiarity when supporting people. People commented, “It’s a good here, we get good care and the food is lovely” and “You only have to ask and it’s done, they are very good here.”

Is the service responsive?

The service worked with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. Staff made prompt referrals to GPs, district nurses and other health professionals when people required support with their health care needs. One person told us “If I am unwell they all come running, they get the doctor in straight away, no delays.”

People who lived at the home were listened to and their views were acted upon. People were asked to give feedback on their experience of the service. This was done on an informal basis through one to one discussions with people and through the use of surveys. People’s feedback was then used to make improvements to the service.

Is the service well-led?

Systems were in place for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service. These included regular checks on aspects of the service and seeking the views of people who lived at the home and their relatives. The service was managed in a way that ensured people’s health, safety and welfare were protected and the interests of the people who lived at the home was at the centre of how the service was run and managed.

18th March 2014 - During an inspection in response to concerns

We carried out this inspection in response to concerns raised about the service to check on whether the home was compliant in outcomes relating to care and welfare of people who use the service, safeguarding, staffing notifying CQC of notifiable events.

We spoke with people who used the service, relatives and staff. Some of the comments we received included:

"The staff are often very busy but they are very good."

"The staff are very kind they'd do anything for you."

During our inspection we observed that the people who used the service appeared happy and content living at Croxteth Care Home. Throughout our observation we noted that people were treated with care and consideration. We observed that staff focussed on completing tasks for people, but always acknowledged and engaged with them.

Staff were aware of the procedures to protect vulnerable adults and knew how to report any concerns. We noted that all safeguarding referrals had been made to the relevant bodies in a timely manner. We also noted that some incidents which should have been notified to the commission had not been actioned, in a sufficiently detailed and timely manner.

20th August 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We spoke with ten people who used the service and their relatives. People told us they had made decisions about their care and treatment and they told us they had received the right care and support. Their comments included:

“It is a lovely place.”

“I am happy here.”

“I like the place very much and the food is superb.”

“It is a good as it can be.”

During our inspection we found that there were sufficient staff working at the home and care and support was provided in a manner that met the needs of the individuals. We saw that systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided on a regular basis.

Overall we found that records were kept securely and were well organised and up to date.

21st February 2013 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

We spoke to three people living at the service. Their comments about the service and the staff were positive. One person told us "The girls are lovely" another commented "Oh I'm very well looked after by them all". During our visit we also spoke to a visiting relative who told us "I know my mum is cared for here".

We also looked at the overall environment of the service, including the grounds, and the maintenance of the interior. We found that these were in good order. During our visit we also reviewed records relating staff and the general management of the service. We found these to be accurate and up to date.

25th September 2012 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We spoke with five people living at the home. Their comments were positive about the service they received. One person told us that they were “very happy” and another person told us “people are very nice and very helpful.”

Two people commented about the food choices they had. They told us “always enjoy the food” and “the food is good, yes, you have a choice.”

Four people that we spoke to told us that they were happy with the service they received. One person told us “if not happy they would talk to the girls, they’d sort it.”

People who we spoke to told positive things about the staff team. These comments included “they are lovely” and “staff are all wonderful.”

 

 

Latest Additions: