CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Alma Green Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about PPE, testing, admissions, visitors, social distancing and outbreak management. They said additional equipment might help reduce infection risks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, with some additional equipment suggested.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 24 March 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than a full inspection of the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, social distancing, admissions, PPE, testing and possible outbreaks safely. They also found the infection control policy was up to date and the home was clean and uncluttered.
Staff had infection control training, and people were supported to keep in touch with loved ones using tablets and telephones. A visitors room was being introduced for face-to-face visits.
The home was not given an overall quality rating or a rating for Safe. This report shows what inspectors found about infection control only.
Infection control training
Staff had access to detailed infection control training and said it gave them confidence to provide care based on best practice.
“The registered manager had ensured staff could access comprehensive and informative training in various aspects of infection control.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and uncluttered. Cleaning checks and audits were carried out, with action taken when needed.
“The environment and equipment had been arranged to minimise the risk of infection and was clean and clutter free.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
People and staff were tested regularly for COVID-19. People were supported to decide whether to take part in the vaccination programme.
“Staff and people were tested regularly for COVID-19 and were taking part in the vaccination programme.” from the report
Keeping in touch
Staff supported people to use electronic tablets and telephones to maintain contact with people close to them. A visitors room was being introduced.
“Staff supported people to use electronic tablets and telephones to maintain contact with loved ones.” from the report
Additional equipment
minorInspectors said some additional equipment could further reduce the risk of infection. They signposted the provider to resources to improve its approach.
“We noted additional equipment may be beneficial to reduce the risk and spread of infection and have signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What additional equipment did inspectors suggest, and has it now been provided?
- 02How are staff currently trained and checked on infection prevention and control?
- 03How do you manage visits and contact with relatives now?
- 04How often are people and staff tested for infections, and what happens if there is a positive result?
- 05Can you show us the home's current full CQC ratings, as this inspection was not a full assessment?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other four questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 April 2021 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, August 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and improvements since the previous inspection, with minor medicines and record-keeping shortfalls.
This was an unannounced inspection. Inspectors spoke with seven people living at the home, two relatives and three staff members. They observed care and checked care files, medicines records, staff files, training records and other documents.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were described as safe, treated with dignity and supported to make choices. Staff were trained, activities had improved and people's food and health needs were being met.
There were some minor problems with medicines records, monitoring accidents and incidents, one recruitment check and one mental capacity record. These were discussed during the inspection, and the provider produced action plans or corrected the issues immediately. The home had been Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in 2018, with several legal breaches, but inspectors found it was no longer in breach.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Risk assessments, fire arrangements and emergency evacuation plans gave staff clear guidance.
“Care plans and risk assessments contained clear explanations of the control measures for staff to follow to keep people safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed warm interactions. Staff respected privacy and dignity and supported people to express their wishes and make decisions.
“The staff team ensured people's, privacy, dignity and independence was maintained.” from the report
Food and health support
People's dietary needs were assessed and monitored. Inspectors found a varied menu, good monitoring of food and drink, and appropriate involvement from health professionals.
“The provider ensured people received a well-balanced diet, which met their needs.” from the report
Improved activities
An activity co-ordinator had been appointed and a wider programme of activities was provided in the home and local community.
“More structured activities had been introduced based on people's preferences and wishes.” from the report
Improvements since 2018
The provider had acted on the previous inspection findings. Training, supervision, care records, monitoring and the environment had improved.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingMedicines were generally received, stored and given safely, but inspectors found minor shortfalls in medicines management. The provider made an action plan immediately after the inspection.
“However, we identified some minor shortfalls, which were discussed with the deputy manager.” from the report
Accident monitoring
needs fixingThe records did not clearly show how accidents and incidents were monitored or what lessons had been learned. The provider produced an action plan after the inspection.
“It was not clear how they were monitored and what action had been taken.” from the report
Recruitment checks
needs fixingOne staff member had changed roles without further checks being completed for the new position. Management said this would be addressed for future role changes.
“One member of staff had changed roles during their employment, but further checks had not been conducted in relation to their new position.” from the report
One mental capacity record
needs fixingMental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were generally recorded, but one care file did not contain the expected evidence at the time of inspection. The provider's action plan confirmed this was completed afterwards.
“This was evident in the DoLS applications, but not in one of the care files we looked at.” from the report
- 01What checks are now used to make sure medicines records are complete and accurate?
- 02How are accidents and incidents monitored, and how are lessons shared with staff?
- 03Was the additional recruitment check completed for the staff member who changed roles?
- 04How do you record mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions for each person?
- 05How are activities matched to individual interests, including gardening and trips out?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection covering all five CQC key questions and the overall quality and safety of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 August 2019 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 Alma Green Residential Care Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Alma Green Residential Care Home →
- August 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Alma Green Residential Care Home →
- July 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 December 2010.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.