CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Agricola House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk management, staffing, medicines, infection control, safeguarding and incident reporting were all found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found the home was well organised, with clear responsibilities, regular audits, feedback from people and relatives, and partnership working with other organisations.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found people safe, enough staff available and a well-organised home.
This was a focused inspection on 2 August 2022 after concerns about staffing. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, reviewed care records, and checked management records and audits.
Inspectors found people were protected from harm. Risk assessments were up to date, staff were recruited safely, medicines were managed properly, and infection control arrangements were effective. They found enough staff to meet people's needs.
The home was well organised. Managers understood their responsibilities, listened to feedback and worked with other professionals. The overall rating stayed Good, as it was at the previous inspection published on 4 June 2018.
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough competent staff to meet people's needs. People also said staff were available when needed.
“Managers ensured there were sufficient competent staff to meet people's needs at all times.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely. Records showed people received their medicines as required.
“Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely. People's medication records confirmed they received their medicines as required.” from the report
People's feedback
People were regularly asked for their views. Their feedback was shared with staff and used to make changes.
“Meetings with people who used the service took place before every staff meeting.” from the report
Good partnership working
Managers worked with health and social care professionals to support people's needs and improve outcomes.
“Managers worked closely with a wide range of professionals to meet people's health and social needs.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What staffing concerns led to this focused inspection, and how have you checked that they remain resolved?
- 02How do you make sure there are enough competent staff for each person's needs at all times?
- 03How are people and relatives' feedback and suggestions recorded, acted on and reviewed?
- 04How do you check that medicines continue to be stored, administered and recorded safely?
- 05What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous comprehensive inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 August 2022 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.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Agricola House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, respectful and personalised care, with some minor improvements needed.
The unannounced inspection took place on 24 and 25 April 2018. The inspector reviewed care records, medicines, staff training, safety checks, staffing rotas and quality audits. They also spoke with four people living at the home and five staff members.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were treated politely. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines systems, clean and well-maintained accommodation, and care based on people's needs and choices.
The home had remained Good since the previous inspection in August 2015. Inspectors found no serious risks or concerns. They did identify some issues to improve, including very hot water in some areas, high staff turnover over the previous year and feedback not always being shared with people.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they were happy and felt safe. Safeguarding systems were in place and previous concerns had been referred to the relevant agencies.
“People we spoke with told us they were happy and felt safe living at Agricola house.” from the report
Respectful relationships
Inspectors saw friendly and polite interactions. Staff respected people's privacy and knew their individual needs and changes in behaviour.
“We found the atmosphere at the home was relaxed and friendly.” from the report
Personalised support
People helped shape their routines, meals and activities. Staff used different ways to communicate with people who had difficulty expressing themselves.
“People were involved in developing their weekly plans based on their individual preferences and chosen routines, this included activities within the local and wider community.” from the report
Support for independence
The home supported people to improve daily living skills, take part in household tasks and become more independent in the community.
“People live at Agricola House for a period of time so that they can be supported to re-learn or improve their daily living skills” from the report
Good oversight
The registered manager and other managers completed audits covering areas such as medicines, health and safety and infection control. Accidents, incidents and care plans were reviewed.
“Effective systems were in place to monitor and review the service provided.” from the report
Staff turnover
needs fixingThere had been high staff turnover over the previous year. The home had recruited to fill posts and people and staff said staffing had improved, but families should ask about current staffing stability.
“Over the last year there had been a high turnover of staff.” from the report
Hot water
needs fixingWater temperatures were very hot in some areas. The home repaired these during the second day of the inspection.
“We found in some areas water temperatures were very hot.” from the report
Sharing survey feedback
minorThe home collected feedback and identified actions, but did not routinely tell people the survey results. A newsletter was being planned to improve communication.
“We were told this was not routinely done.” from the report
Training consistency
needs fixingStaff understanding of the Mental Capacity Act varied. Some bank staff had not yet completed acquired brain injury training, although arrangements were being made.
“Their understanding of the legislation varied however staff were able to give good examples of how they sought peoples consent before offering support.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff currently work at the home, and has the high staff turnover continued?
- 02Have all permanent and bank staff completed acquired brain injury and other training needed for the people living here?
- 03What checks are now in place to make sure water temperatures remain safe?
- 04How will you share survey results and improvement actions with people and their relatives?
- 05How are people's progress towards returning home or moving to more independent living reviewed?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole service, covering all five key questions, and all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 June 2018 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.
Every inspection of Agricola House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 June 2014.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Bury
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 94 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.