You are here

Mariners Park Care Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 7 June 2019

About the service: Mariners Park Care Home provides accommodation with nursing or personal care for up to 32 people. The home is part of a range of services provided by Nautilus Welfare Fund to former seafarers and their families. There were 29 people living in the home when we visited.

People’s experience of using this service:

The systems and processes in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service were not always effective in identifying and driving up improvements. This meant that the service was not always well led.

The culture of the service was not always open and transparent. At times during the inspection the manager was defensive and dismissive which made it difficult to discuss the concerns we identified during the inspection and the improvements that needed to be made.

Medication management did not adhere to best practice guidelines published by the National Institute of Social Care (NICE) with regards to the storage, administration or management of medicines. This meant it was not safe.

Where people’s capacity to consent to their care was in question, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was not always followed to protect their human rights.

Some care plans contained sufficient information on people’s needs and risks but others did not. Dementia care planning was poor and there was little evidence that people’s end of life wishes were discussed with them and properly planned for.

Risks in relation people’s care were not always adequately minimised in the delivery of care. For example, support to help people change position to relieve pressure on their skin was not always provided at the required frequency. The provider’s fire evacuation procedure was also unclear as it did not ensure everyone living in the home had a suitable means of escape.

People told us that the home could do with more staff on duty. Some said their needs were not always met in a timely manner because of this. This indicated that staffing levels required improvement.

Staff recruitment was overall satisfactory. Pre-employment checks were undertaken to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people but their application forms were not always fully completed. This aspect of recruitment required improvement.

Staff had access to a range of training to support them to be effective in their job role. They received adequate supervision and told us they felt supported by the manager in their day to day duties.

People received enough to eat and drink and told us their nutritional preferences were respected. Where professional dietary advice was given, this had been followed but one person had requested a small change to their diet which had not been acted upon.

People told us that staff were kind, caring and patient and our observations confirmed this. People told us that they felt staff knew them well. They said they felt safe at the home and had a choice in how they lived their lives.

A range of activities were offered to meet people’s social and recreational needs. People told us that there was plenty to join in with if they wanted. Regular meetings took place with people living in the home and staff to ensure that their views and opinions with regards to the service were sought.

People’s needs were met by a range of health and social care professionals. People told us that staff were quick to get the doctor if they became unwell.

Rating at last inspection and why we inspected: At the last inspection the rating of the service was good. At this inspection the rating has not been maintained. At this inspection, the service has been rated 'Requires Improvement'.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see full report which is on the CQC website at

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 7 June 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our Safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 7 June 2019

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our Effective findings below.



Updated 7 June 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our Caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 7 June 2019

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our Responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 7 June 2019

The service was not always well-led

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.