• Care Home
  • Care home

Finch Manor Nursing Home

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

Finch Lea Drive, Liverpool, L14 9QN (0151) 259 0617

Provided and run by:
Lotus Care (Finch Manor) Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Our current view of the service

Inadequate

Updated 13 October 2025

Date of assessment: 22 October to 27 November 2025. Finch Manor Nursing Home is registered to provide personal and nursing care for up to 89 people. At the time of our assessment, 81 people were living at the service.

We undertook this assessment following concerns raised about the quality and safety of care. We have identified four breaches of legal regulation. The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment. Improvements were not found at this assessment, and the provider remained in breach of this regulation. At this assessment we have also found the provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to person‑centred care, safeguarding people from abuse and improper treatment, staffing, and good governance.

The service was not providing safe or good‑quality care. People were exposed to avoidable harm because of repeated failures in how care was planned, delivered and monitored. Basic care needs were not consistently met, and staff were not always available to provide timely support. Some people were left without personal care, appropriate supervision or meaningful interaction, which affected their dignity and wellbeing.

Risks were not always assessed or managed effectively. Information within care records was often incomplete or contradictory, and essential equipment was not always clean, correctly set up or used safely. Medicines were not consistently administered or recorded safely, with unsafe PRN practices, poor record‑keeping and breaches of the Mental Capacity Act.

Following site visits, the information we received demonstrated that safeguarding concerns had not always been recognised, reported or acted upon by the provider. During the assessment, a serious safeguarding incident occurred but was not disclosed to inspectors, raising significant concerns about transparency and leadership. We raised these issues with the provider and were not assured

Staffing levels were unsafe, and reliance on agency staff meant people did not consistently receive care from staff who understood their needs. People experienced delays in receiving care and support, and staff were unable to provide consistent or person‑centred care.

Governance systems were not effective. Information received during the assessment prompted further review of leadership oversight. Leaders had not learned from previous inspections, complaints or safeguarding investigations. Many issues identified during this assessment had been raised before but not addressed, and improvements had not been sustained.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.

As a result of these concerns, the service is being placed into special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure services rated as inadequate make significant improvements. This framework allows CQC to take enforcement action where necessary and sets clear expectations and timescales for the provider to improve the quality and safety of care.

People's experience of the service

Updated 13 October 2025

People’s experiences of care varied significantly across the home. Many people told us they felt unsupported, with little meaningful interaction from staff, particularly those who were cared for in their rooms. Several people using the service described long periods without engagement, and some said they did not always feel safe or listened to. Observations confirmed people often waited extended periods for assistance and were sometimes spoken to in ways that did not promote dignity or reassurance.

People’s experiences of mealtimes were mixed. While some enjoyed the food, others felt it lacked choice. Lunchtime observations identified concerns about communication, consent and the level of support people received. Some people were served food without explanation, and support was not always delivered in a person‑centred way.

Activity provision was inconsistent. While people on one unit benefitted from warm, engaging sessions provided by staff, people living on other units reported there was little to do. Inspectors also saw minimal interaction or stimulation for those who were bedbound or cared for in their rooms.

Some relatives were positive about staff kindness, communication and efforts to meet individual needs. Others raised concerns about how people were supported, including issues relating to staff approach, missing belongings and delays in resolving matters. People’s overall experiences were affected by staffing levels, and people reported long waits and limited engagement because staff were busy.

Overall, people’s experiences were not consistently positive. Although some individual staff created meaningful moments of interaction, many people experienced isolation, a lack of stimulation, inconsistent support and care that did not always uphold their dignity or wellbeing.