You are here

Archived: Speke Care Home (Residential) Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 1 June 2018

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Speke Care Home on 9 March 2018. Speke Care Home is a purpose built two storey building situated in the Speke area of Liverpool. The home is registered to provide personal care for up to 49 older people and at the time of our visit the service was providing support for 10 people. At the time of inspection everyone was accommodated on the ground floor of the home.

Speke Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager who had been registered with CQC since March 2017. 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. At our previous inspection the service had been in the process of changing providers, during this inspection we saw that this had not taken place.

During our last inspection we had identified that there were issues with medicines, recruitment processes and care plans. At this inspection we saw that improvements had been made.

During our last inspection we had identified an issue with medication administration regarding recording of returned medications. On this inspection we saw an improvement and all records were in good order. Medicines were managed safely.

Care plans and risk assessments were person centred and they detailed how people wished and needed to be cared for. They were regularly reviewed and updated as required.

At our last inspection we met a representative of a company that was proposing to take over the management of the service but the manager told us that this company was no longer involved. Two other consultants were providing management support. The manager told us that the provider had not visited the home “for years”. We were unable to see how the provider had effective input or oversight of the service.

The registered manager and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions. We saw that people were supported to make their own decisions and their choices were respected.

There was a safeguarding policy in place and staff were aware of the safeguarding procedure in relation to safeguarding adults and all were aware of the need to inform the manager immediately.

There were a range of audits in place to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service provided. Examples included, medication audits, infection control audit and premises checks. People’s views and opinions on the service provided were regularly sought. For example, there was evidence of satisfaction surveys being carried out.

There continued to be sufficient staff employed at the home to meet people’s care needs. The staffing levels were maintained when the number of people living in the home decreased. This contributed to the quality of the care being delivered.

The staff were friendly, welcoming and we observed good relationships were maintained with people living in the home and a kind and respectful approach to people’s care. The manager continued to be a visible presence in and about the home and it was obvious that she knew the people who lived in the home well.

Inspection areas



Updated 1 June 2018

The service was Safe

Improvements had been made to medication management.

Risk assessments were clear and detailed how people needed to be cared for.

Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place. Staff had received training about safeguarding vulnerable people.



Updated 1 June 2018

The service was Effective

Staff had undertaken relevant and appropriate training.

The service was working within the principles of the MCA and DoLS.

People�s nutritional needs were monitored and met.



Updated 1 June 2018

The service was Caring

We observed that people's privacy, confidentiality and dignity was maintained.

We observed staff to be caring, respectful and approachable.



Updated 1 June 2018

The service was Responsive

People�s care records were detailed and provided individualised information about people�s support needs.

Care plan review documentation was updated regularly.

Suitable processes were in place to deal with complaints.


Requires improvement

Updated 1 June 2018

The service was well-led

There was no evidence that the provider had any effective input or oversight of the service.

The registered manager was a visible presence and staff said communication was open and encouraged.

The service had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission.