You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 14 February 2019

This comprehensive inspection was carried out on 17 January 2019 and was unannounced.

Somerville 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.

Somerville is registered to provide support for up to seven people who require support with their mental health. At the time of our inspection seven people were living there.

The house is a large adapted domestic style dwelling situated in a busy area of Wallasey near to local amenities and transport. All of the bedrooms had en-suite bath or shower rooms.

The service has a registered manager. 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.

During our previous inspection of the service in December 2017 We had found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in respect of Regulation 17. This was because systems and processes were ineffective at assessing monitoring and mitigating risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of people. We also found a breach of Regulation 18 of the Registration Regulations 2009.This was because the provider had not notified the commission without delay of an event that affected the health, safety and welfare of a person who used the service

The overall rating for the service was ‘requires improvement’. Following the inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions; ‘Is the service safe?’ ‘Is the service effective? ‘Is the service caring? ‘Is the service responsive?’ and ‘Is the service well-led?’ To at least a rating of good.

At this inspection we identified that improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.

People living at Somerville told us that they liked living there. one person told us, “It’s very nice, staff are okay.” Another person told us, “It’s all right here, I like it.” The home had an ethos of promoting people’s independence and working alongside people to support them to increase their everyday living skills.

People were supported to occupy their time in ways they enjoyed and benefited from. At home people were supported and encouraged to be as independent as possible with everyday living skills such as cleaning and meal preparation. People attended a variety of clubs and classes in their local community, they also enjoyed regular holidays and days out. Whilst people were encouraged to go out and about independently staff were available to accompany people who needed their support.

People who were able to could go into their kitchen at any time and make a drink or meal with or without staff support. People told us they helped to plan meals and went food shopping if they chose to do so. An individual approach was taken to meals. This meant that some people ate different meals or prepared their own and budgets were adjusted accordingly. People who needed support at mealtimes or with their nutrition were provided with this.

Systems were in place for safeguarding people from the risk of abuse and reporting any concerns that arose. People felt safe living at Somerville and staff knew what action to take if they felt people were at risk of abuse. A system was in place for raising concerns or complaints and people felt confident to raise any concerns they had in the knowledge they would be listened to.

People’s medication was safely managed, stored and recorded. People told us they were happy for staff to look after their medication and they always received it on time. Staff provided peop

Inspection areas



Updated 14 February 2019

The service was safe.

Systems were in place to monitor risks to people�s safety and reduce the risk of these occurring. People said they felt safe with the support they received at the home.

Enough staff were available provide the support people needed. Systems were in place and followed to check new staff were suitable to work with people who may be vulnerable.

People�s medication was safely managed.



Updated 14 February 2019

The service was effective.

Staff received training and support to understand and meet people's needs.

People were supported to be as independent as possible and make decisions and choices for themselves. Where they were unable to do so the provider took steps to obtain legal protections for them.

People were encouraged to spend their time at home and in their wider community as they chose.



Updated 14 February 2019

The service was caring.

People had good relationships with the staff team who they liked and trusted.

Staff knew people well and spent time supporting people to lead the lifestyle they chose as well as meeting their support needs.



Updated 14 February 2019

The service was responsive.

People were supported to learn and increase their everyday living skills and spend their time on activities they enjoyed.

Care plans provided clear guidance to staff on how to meet people�s needs and choices. They were written and reviewed with the person and people had confidence in the care planning approach to improve their lives.

People felt confident to raise any concerns or complaints that they may have and felt they would be listened to.



Updated 14 February 2019

The service was well-led.

The registered manager was experienced and operated a person-centred service. She was liked and trusted by people living at the home and the staff team.

Effective systems were in place for assessing the quality of the service and planning future improvements.