You are here


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about YourLife (Southport) on 9 September 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about YourLife (Southport), you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 13 June 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Yourlife Southport is an extra care service. It specialises in retirement living and is registered to provider personal care to people who live in their own apartments within a dedicated housing scheme. There were some shared areas including a restaurant.

Everyone told us they felt safe receiving care from the staff. No one required support with medication. Risk assessments were in place and reviewed regularly or when needed. Staff were recruited safely and followed infection control procedures.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff were trained and supervised. People told us they were supported with their meals, and most people ate together in the restaurant.

People commented on the caring nature of the staff. We spent time talking to people, talking to staff and observing engagement. Documentation was kept securely, and people’s independence and choice were promoted within their care plans.

Person centred care was apparent in care plans, and our observations. People’s background and preferences for support were well documented in their care plans and staff knew people well. People told us they knew how to complain. Staff were trained in end of life care and support.

There was a registered manager is place and people spoke positively about them. The registered manager was aware of their roles and responsibilities. People had been engaged with and asked for their feedback, and there was good partnership working between Yourlife Southport and the housing provider.

Audits took place and action plans were developed and allocated.

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

Rating at last inspection

At our last inspection this service was rated good. (Report published 11 November 2016). At this inspection the service remained good.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Yourlife Southport on our website at

Inspection carried out on 27 September 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 27 September 2016 and was announced.

Yourlife (Southport) is registered to provide a small domiciliary care service to people living at Brunlees Court in Southport who require it. Brunlees court is a new housing complex consisting of luxury privately owned apartments, communal seating areas, gardens and private restaurant on site. At the time of our inspection, four people were receiving a domiciliary care service in their apartment’s. This was the provider’s first inspection.

There was a registered manager in post; they were not available on the day of our inspection.

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.

People told us they felt safe with the care staff.

The staff we spoke with were able to explain what action to take if they felt someone was being abused or neglected in anyway. There were policies in place for staff to refer to and staff were able to describe the policy.

Risks assessments were completed and regularly reviewed for each person to help mitigate the risk of harm and they contained an appropriate amount of detail.

There was enough staff in the complex to be able to attend to people’s needs when required.

Medications were stored appropriately, in peoples own apartments. Most people had chosen to self-administer their medications, however the staff received training enabling them to complete this task safely if required to do so or people’s needs changed.

Staff were recruited safely and checks were carried out on staff before they started work at the complex to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staff completed an induction as well as other training courses selected by the provider to enable them to have the skills needed to complete their role.

The deputy manager and staff we spoke with were aware of their roles in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated legislation.

There was a restaurant on site where people could chose to purchase and eat meals, or some people were supported to have meals in their apartment’s.

People had access to medical professionals such as GP’s, opticians and chiropodists when they needed them. Staff had recorded the outcomes of these visits in people’s care plans.

People told us they liked the staff and felt they cared and respected them. We observed staff interacting in a kind a familiar way with people.

Care plans contained person centred information about the person, which evidenced that staff had clearly taken the time to get to know each person.

There was a complaints procedure in place, and people told us they would have no problem raising a complaint if they needed to. Complaints we viewed evidenced that they were dealt with in timely way, and in accordance with the provider’s complaints policy.

The registered manager was not available on the day of our inspection, however the deputy manager and the area manager were available and we spent time talking to them.

People were complimentary about the management of the complex in general, and said they liked the deputy manager.

Quality assurance systems had been implemented and were being used to audit in areas such as care planning, health and safety, medication, incident and accidents, and training.