CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Almond Villas
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found that risks were reviewed, medicines were managed safely, recruitment checks were completed and infection control had improved, although some environmental risk assessments needed more detail.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care assessments and reviews were comprehensive, staff had relevant training and people were supported with nutrition, healthcare and rehabilitation. Inspectors found that people were making their own decisions and were not unlawfully restricted.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff positively. Inspectors observed kind, sensitive and respectful interactions, and found that people were involved in decisions about their care and supported to maintain their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences, goals and support needs. People were offered activities and help to develop skills for independent living, and the one recorded complaint had been handled according to the home's procedure.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management and quality checks had improved since the previous inspection. There were regular audits, staff meetings and daily handovers, although resident meetings had stopped temporarily and survey results had not yet been analysed.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with clear improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection over 19 and 20 February 2019. One inspector spoke with three people using the home, the registered manager, an operations manager and a care worker. They also checked care records, staff recruitment files, medicines records, training records and management documents.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and that staff were kind, respectful and knew them well. Inspectors found that people were involved in their care, supported to make choices and encouraged to become more independent.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in March 2018, when it was rated Requires Improvement. The earlier concerns about infection control, reviewing safety assessments and quality assurance had been addressed. Some environmental risk assessments still needed to be more specific, and resident meetings were due to restart.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report concerns.
“People who used the service told us they felt safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, sensitivity and respect. People said staff knew them well.
“We observed interactions from staff that were kind, caring, sensitive and positive.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, goals, early warning signs and the support they needed. People were involved in creating and reviewing their plans.
“People's care plans reflected their preferences, goals and choices and identified the level of support people required.” from the report
Support for independence
The home helped people build everyday skills, including cooking and basic computer skills, to prepare for more independent living.
“There was a strong emphasis on independence within the service, as the aim was for people to move on to” from the report
Improved management checks
The manager had introduced more audits and monitoring since the previous inspection. These covered areas such as care plans, medicines, health and safety and staff files.
“Since our last inspection, the registered manager had improved the quality assurance systems in place.” from the report
Environmental risk assessments
needs fixingSome environmental risk assessments did not give enough detail about specific areas of the home. The manager said this would be addressed.
“However, some environmental risk assessments needed to be more specific to areas within the service.” from the report
Resident meetings had stopped
minorResident meetings had stopped after people voted not to have them. The manager had reviewed this and said the meetings would restart.
“Resident meetings had stopped due to all people using the service voting in favour of not having them.” from the report
Feedback was not yet fully reviewed
minorSurveys had been sent to people using the service, but the results had not yet been analysed because some responses were still outstanding.
“Results of these had not been analysed as they were still awaiting some being returned.” from the report
- 01Have the environmental risk assessments been updated to cover specific areas of the home?
- 02Have resident meetings restarted, and how are people's views now collected and acted on?
- 03What did the latest surveys show, and how were the results used to improve the service?
- 04How are medicines checked for people who self-medicate?
- 05What activities and support would be available to help my relative build skills for more independent living?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 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.
What inspectors found, May 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective support, but weaknesses in safety checks and management oversight.
Inspectors visited on 19 and 20 March 2018. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with four people, staff and managers, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files, rotas, complaints and audits.
People said they felt safe and staff were caring, respectful and available. Medicines were handled safely. The home supported people's independence, health appointments, activities and contact with family and friends.
However, some safety assessments and care records had not been reviewed for over 12 months. There were also infection control issues, including poor storage and uncovered bathroom bins. The systems for checking quality had not found or corrected these problems.
The overall rating is Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The home was rated Good at its previous inspection in October 2015.
Safe medicines support
Medicines records were complete and stock checks matched the records inspected. People were supported to manage their own medicines when they could do so safely.
“Robust systems were in place to ensure the safe handling of medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as supportive. Inspectors saw warm, respectful interactions and staff asking permission before entering people's flats.
“During the inspection, we observed warm and respectful interactions between all staff and people who lived in the home.” from the report
Out-of-date safety records
seriousTwo of the four care records checked had safety assessments that had not been formally reviewed after the initial three-month period. This created a risk that support might not reflect people's current needs.
“This meant there was a risk people might receive unsafe care, although neither of the individuals concerned raised any issues with us.” from the report
Infection control shortfalls
needs fixingInspectors found problems with mop storage, bathroom storage, uncovered bathroom bins and a shower cubicle needing refurbishment. Some fridge temperatures were also not recorded consistently.
“During the inspection, we conducted a tour of communal areas in each flat.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousThe provider's audits did not properly check whether care records were reviewed and updated. Required actions from a local authority infection control audit had not been completed, and no provider monitoring visits were found since the previous inspection.
“There was a lack of robust quality assurance processes.” from the report
Limited formal feedback
needs fixingPeople had not been offered the planned annual satisfaction survey since September 2016. This reduced their formal opportunity to give feedback about their care.
“The fact that a survey had not been completed since September 2016 meant people had not been offered a formal opportunity to provide feedback on the care and support they received in Almond Villas.” from the report
- 01Have all people's safety assessments and care plans now been reviewed and updated?
- 02What changes have been made to mop storage, bathroom bins, bathroom storage and the shower cubicle?
- 03How are fridge temperatures and other infection control checks recorded now?
- 04What action was taken in response to the Regulation 17 breach, and what did CQC find when it checked?
- 05Has the manager completed the CQC registration process, and who is currently responsible for running the home?
This was a planned inspection of the overall service covering all five key questions, with the first day unannounced; the previous inspection was in October 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 May 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 Almond Villas
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 May 2011.
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 Blackburn with Darwen
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. 91 can care for a couple. 12 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.