• Care Home
  • Care home

Tollemache Road Respite Service

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

31-33 Tollemache Road, Prenton, Merseyside, CH43 8SU (01905) 334000

Provided and run by:
Sanctuary Home Care Limited

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

About the service

Tollemache Road Respite Service is a care home which operates as a respite service where people stay for short breaks. Up to 10 people can book in and stay at the service at a time. We carried out our assessment over a 2-week period. Each week of the assessment, there were 7 people using the service.

 

Who the service is for

This is a specialist respite service for autistic people and people with a learning disability.

 

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 7 September, 9 September and 15 September 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

We assessed the provider against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

Staff were recruited safely and staff had the skills and knowledge to support people effectively. This included training to support autistic people and people with a learning disability.

Medicines were administered safely. Risks were assessed before people started to use the service and people were involved in the process. These risks were reviewed before each stay to ensure any changes in care needs were known, and staff understood how to support people effectively, and safely. This included any changes in specialist advice or guidance. A family member told us, “They check [Name’s] needs on a regular basis and adapt what we need. They are fantastic with [Name], [Name] is happy and loves going.” Another family member confirmed, “When I book [Name] in, they ask if anything new I need to make them aware of, they ask me, it’s risk assessed when you register them in.”

When people needed specialist support with their care or to take their medicines, for example because of a specific health condition, staff received specialist training and, where appropriate, observations of practice were completed.

There were effective systems in place to safeguard people from abuse. When incidents or accidents happened, other agencies where informed when appropriate and systems were in place to look at how lessons could be learnt to avoid a reoccurrence. Family members felt confident in how any incidents were managed. One told us, “If anything happened, [Name] would tell us. If I didn’t feel confident in that sense or if I felt a risk, I’d not leave [Name] there.”

The environment and equipment were clean, safe and well maintained. Regular fire drills were conducted to ensure staff and people who were staying at the service knew what to do in the event of an emergency.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. Nobody was being deprived of their liberty. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions, they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. People confirmed staff knocked on their bedroom doors before entering. One family member explained staff have used picture cards with their loved one to gain consent and to support effective decision making.

Care plans highlighted people’s preferences in care. Staff demonstrated a very strong commitment to person-centred support and care. We observed kind and caring interactions between people and staff and people were supported to maintain their independence and usual daily routines and activities. Some people liked to help staff during their stay. One person told us, “I put the cutlery and mats out and sometimes help with other things.”

Processes were in place to ensure people had equity in experience and outcomes during their stay. For example, activities and meals were planned with people at the start of the week to ensure everyone had the opportunity to choose activities and meals which were important to them and enhanced their experience. One person told us they had chosen the cinema and macaroni cheese for their stay. A staff member told us of a recent activity when everyone chose to go out for tea rather than have a cooked meal. People spoke positively about the food provided at the service. Comments included, “The dinners are good” and “I like the food.”

The provider had a clear shared vision and strategy, and staff told us they felt valued and supported. A staff member said, “[The registered manager] is nice. They are good. We would go to them or the deputy manager. If there was a problem, they would sort it.”

A system of audits and checks was in place which was effective to monitor the quality of the service and identify any improvements. There was a culture of learning and improvement. Leaders worked with people, their families, other professionals and staff to continually strive to improve the service.

Visiting professionals gave positive feedback about the service and positive partnership working. Comments included, “I value the way their staff take the time to understand my clients’ complex needs and ensure [Name] is happy and settled throughout their stay” and “On several occasions, I have had to connect with the service to provide emergency respite for individuals experiencing difficulties in their usual place of residence. Tollemache have always provided a calm and professional approach to these scenarios, assessing thoroughly and ensuring that even in a crisis, the individual receives a person-centred experience.”

Staff were also responsive to peoples changes in circumstance. During our assessment a person stayed longer than planned due to a personal circumstance occurring. A family member told us of another time when their loved on stayed on longer than planned due to a family emergency. They spoke of the relief that gave them and said, “That to us was out of this world, fantastic.”

There was a strong sense of teamwork between staff who spoke with pride about working at Tollemache Road Respite Service. One staff member said, “We are a good team and we get on well.”

18 May 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

The service provides short stay respite services for up to 10 adults who have a learning disability or a physical disability. The number of people staying at the service at any one time varied from week to week. At the time of this inspection there were six people using the service.

We found the following examples of good practice.

• The service followed safe visiting procedures.

• Temperature checks were completed on all visitors and evidence of negative test for COVID-19 was a requirement before entry into the building.

• Shielding and social distancing rules were complied with. The environment had been adapted to support social distancing. Each room within the building had a clear sign on each door of the maximum occupancy at any one time. This was for the benefit of staff, people living in the home and visitors.

• Safe procedures were followed for admitting people to the service. People were only admitted following evidence of a negative COVID-19 test.

• Stocks of the right standard of personal protective equipment (PPE) were well maintained and staff used and disposed of it correctly.

• The registered manager had implemented new systems, for example staff where provided with clothing they changed into and out of in the premises. This meant the clothing was always washed on site and reduced the risk of any contamination.

• Staff had access to regular testing.

• Guidance on the use of PPE and current infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures were clearly visible across the service. PPE stations were available through out the home.

• Staff knowledge and practice in regard to infection prevention and control procedures for example, 'donning and doffing' PPE and hand washing, was regularly checked. This was also a revisited through staff meetings and through handover sessions.

• The provider had access to see through masks to enable effective communication with people if this was deemed necessary.

• Communication between the home and relatives was maintained through email and letters.

4 July 2018

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 04 and 06 July 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced.

The service provides short stay respite services for up to 10 adults who have a learning disability or a physical disability. The number of people staying at the service at any one time varied from week to week. At the time of this inspection there were seven people using the service.

This was the first inspection for this service.

People in Tollemache Road Respite Service receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a package under contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.

The care service had not been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.” Registering the Right Support CQC policy

Registering the Right Support gives guidance surrounding the maximum amount of people a home providing support to people with learning disabilities should have. Guidance states this should be six however Tollemache Road Respite Service could have up to 10 people staying in the home at one time. We saw that the home itself was situated in a residential area and that people with learning disabilities who were using the service were able to live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

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 service had a registered manager in post.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe at the respite service and they had no worries or concerns. People’s relatives and friends also told us they felt people were safe. The staff at the home knew the people they were supporting and the care they needed. We observed staff to be kind and respectful towards people. The home provided a range of activities that was person led to interest people.

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 each time a person came in to the service for respite. Peoples medications were stored and administered safely.

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 and we saw how people’s independence was supported.

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 and each person was encouraged to give feedback at the end of each stay.

There was a robust recruitment process. There was sufficient staff employed at the respite service to meet people’s support needs. The staffing levels were maintained with the services own bank staff. This contributed to the quality of the care being delivered. Staff received induction, supervision and training appropriate to their role. They told us that they felt well supported and effective in their roles.

The staff were friendly, welcoming and we observed good relationships were maintained with people living in the home and a kind and respectful approach towards 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.

We saw that the service’s environment and people’s bedrooms were nice, clean and well kept. There was also a series of health and safety checks in place to ensure the building was safe.