Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a nursing home, run by Parkhaven Trust

James Page

Parkhaven Trust, Deyes Lane, Maghull, L31 6DJ

Goodpublished 11 January 2024, 2 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found safe staffing, secure medicine storage and detailed risk assessments, but some medicine, equipment and incident records were not always complete.
Effective?
Good
This area was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
Caring?
Good
This area was not inspected during this visit. The report says people had positive relationships with staff and were treated in a caring and respectful way.
Responsive?
Good
This area was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
Well-led?
Good
The home had a positive culture, approachable management and regular checks on quality. Managers responded to issues raised during the inspection and improved some monitoring systems.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, January 2024

James Page is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with some records needing improvement.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 28 and 30 November 2023. Two inspectors spoke with people using the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also checked care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.

The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe and were happy living there. Staff knew people well, staffing levels were safe, and people had personalised care plans and risk assessments.

Inspectors found some minor problems with medicine records, air mattress checks and accident records. The management team acted straight away and improved some systems during the inspection. The overall rating stayed Good because the other three areas were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward.

What inspectors praised
  • Personalised risk management

    Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and regularly reviewed. They gave staff the information needed to manage people's risks.

    People had detailed, personalised risk assessments which were regularly reviewed and gave staff enough detail to manage risk associated with people's care.from the report
  • Kind and respectful care

    Inspectors saw staff offering choices and speaking respectfully. People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care.

    People were offered choice and spoken to in a caring and respectful manner.from the report
  • Safe staffing

    Recruitment checks had been completed and staffing levels were considered safe. Regular agency workers were used to provide consistency.

    Staffing levels were safe. Agency staff were sometimes used, however regular individuals were employed from the agency to ensure consistency.from the report
  • Responsive management

    The manager was available during the inspection and acted promptly when inspectors raised concerns. Quality checks were changed and developed in response.

    The registered manager was on hand throughout the inspection and was responsive to issues we raised.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Medicine records

    needs fixing

    Nurses did not always record where transdermal patches were applied. The home also needed clearer guidance for some medicines given only when needed.

    People received their medicines as prescribed, however, nurses did not always record the exact application site of transdermal patches.from the report
  • Guidance for medicines when needed

    needs fixing

    Guidance was missing for one newly admitted person and did not include all the steps staff should try before offering some medicines.

    Appropriate guidance had not been developed for 1 newly admitted person who had medicines prescribed on an 'as required basis'.from the report
  • Air mattress checks

    needs fixing

    Some air flow mattresses were not correctly calibrated to people's weights. The home addressed the shortfall and reviewed its monitoring system.

    However, not all were accurately calibrated to the individual's weight.from the report
  • Incident records

    needs fixing

    Some accident and incident records were inconsistent and lacked clarity. The manager took action after inspectors raised this.

    We identified some recording inconsistencies which meant some records lacked clarity.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How do you now record the exact application site of transdermal patches?
  2. 02What written guidance is now in place for medicines given on an as-required basis?
  3. 03How do you check that each air flow mattress is correctly calibrated to the person's weight?
  4. 04What changes have been made to make accident and incident records clear and consistent?
  5. 05What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous comprehensive inspection?

This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 2024 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of James Page

4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. January 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at James Page

  2. December 2018Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. August 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. June 2016Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. May 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. February 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. October 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 January 2011.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Same provider

Other services run by Parkhaven Trust

1 other service on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

The Beeches

Liverpool, L31
Good
NursingDementia
Rated 4 years agocare home
Nearby

Other care homes near Maghull

Damfield Gardens

Liverpool, L31 · 0.2 km
Requires improvement
ResidentialDementia
Rated 4 years agocare home

The Beeches

Liverpool, L31 · 1.0 km
Good
NursingDementia
Rated 4 years agocare home

Hudson Road

Liverpool, L31 · 1.0 km
Outstanding
Residential
Rated 6 years agocare home

Parkbourn

Liverpool, L31 · 1.7 km
Good
Residential
Rated 6 years agocare home

Cumberland Gate

Liverpool, L30 · 3.0 km
Good
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home