CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Altham Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The full Safe question was not reviewed because it had previously been rated Good. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control and were assured that the home had suitable Covid-19 and infection control measures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff training and supervision systems had improved. People's needs, consent, nutrition and health care were generally supported well, although inspectors noted a lack of adaptive cutlery and one missed lunchtime meal.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and their independence was promoted. Inspectors also heard one staff member speak abruptly to a person who was shouting, which the manager said would be addressed.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, person-centred and regularly updated. Activities were the main weakness, with some planned sessions not taking place and some people saying they were bored.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was visible and approachable, and quality checks had led to improvements. However, one person said staff did not always work to the same standards.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective care and better systems, but activities were not always suited to people's wishes.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 11 November 2021. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, staff training and supervision records, and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Safe was inspected but not rated. Infection control arrangements, including Covid-19 measures, were checked and inspectors were assured they were effective.
Inspectors found improvements since the previous inspection, when the home was rated Requires Improvement and had several regulatory breaches. At this inspection, the provider was no longer in breach. The main shortfall was that activities were not always structured around people's interests and preferences.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff supported people's independence and involved them in decisions about their care.
“People were treated with dignity and respect and were involved in the decision-making process.” from the report
Improved staff support
The home had introduced better systems for staff training, knowledge checks and supervision. Inspectors found enough improvement for the previous staffing breach to be resolved.
“The provider had introduced systems to improve training programmes for staff.” from the report
Person-centred care planning
Care plans covered people's needs, choices and preferences. They were reviewed monthly and updated when people's needs changed.
“The registered manager had developed detailed and well-structured person-centred care plans, which covered a wide range of areas and reflected individual choices and preferences.” from the report
Good infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures to prevent and manage infections, including Covid-19. The manager acted immediately when one visiting professional used poor infection control practice.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Open management
The manager was visible and approachable. Staff said they felt supported and listened to, and the home used checks and feedback to improve its service.
“The registered manager was visible around the service and had developed good relationships with people.” from the report
Activities were not always suitable
needs fixingSome planned activities did not take place and some people said they were bored. Inspectors recommended developing activities around people's wishes, including individual activities and activities for people with dementia.
“The provision of activities could have been more structured and in line with people's wishes and preferences.” from the report
Training dates were missing
minorRecords showed staff had completed Covid-19 training, but the dates had not been recorded. The manager said this would be corrected.
“Records showed staff had completed training around Covid-19. However, the dates of such training had not been recorded.” from the report
Standards were not always consistent
needs fixingMost feedback about staff was positive, but one person said staff did not all work to the same standards. This may be worth exploring with the home.
“People don't all work to the same standards and that's quite a big inconsistency when you rely on their care.” from the report
Complaints outcomes were not always recorded clearly
minorComplaints had been recorded, but it was not clear from the records whether outcomes had been shared with complainants. The manager said written responses would be kept in future.
“However, it was not clear if details of the outcome had been shared with the complainant.” from the report
- 01How have you changed the activity programme to reflect each person's interests and preferences?
- 02What activities and equipment are available for people living with dementia, such as reminiscence aids or rummage boxes?
- 03How do you make sure all staff work to the same care standards on every shift?
- 04How do you record and share the outcome of complaints with the person who made the complaint?
- 05How do you check that staff training, including infection control training, is completed and dated?
This was a planned follow-up inspection after the previous Requires Improvement rating; the full Safe question was not reassessed, so its previous Good rating carried over, while infection control was checked. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 December 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, July 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found safe staffing, clean surroundings and suitable infection controls, but earlier concerns in other areas were not reviewed.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 16 June 2021. Inspectors checked staffing and response times, cleanliness, the environment, medicines and infection control. They observed care, spoke with two people, a visitor and the management team, and checked records.
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Calls for help were answered promptly, and staff had good interactions with people. The areas inspected were clean and well maintained. Medicines checks and staff training were taking place, with no concerns found in the audits.
The home was not given a new overall rating. Its previous rating was Requires Improvement. This inspection only looked at specific concerns and did not review the full service or all five areas of care.
Staffing and response times
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Inspectors saw good interactions and found that calls for assistance were answered promptly.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Clean and maintained home
The areas inspectors looked at were clean, well maintained and free from bad smells. Cleaning staff and schedules were in place.
“All areas of the home that we looked at, were clean, well maintained and odour free.” from the report
Infection control
Staff used protective equipment safely. The home was carrying out regular COVID-19 testing and had arrangements for visits in line with guidance.
“We observed management and staff using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Medicines checks
Inspectors found regular staff training, checks of practice and medicines audits. These audits had not identified areas of concern.
“We noted regular audits were carried out and no areas of concern had been identified.” from the report
Earlier areas not reviewed
minorThis inspection did not check effective, caring or responsive care. Earlier breaches in those areas therefore remained outside the scope of this visit.
“However, the breaches of regulation in the key questions effective, caring and responsive were not looked at.” from the report
Cleaning schedule
minorInspectors discussed adding items to the cleaning schedule, and the registered manager agreed to address this.
“We discussed making additions to the cleaning schedule; the registered manager agreed to address this.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made since the previous Requires Improvement rating?
- 02What was added to the cleaning schedule after the inspection, and how is completion checked?
- 03How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient when staff are off sick or on leave?
- 04What evidence can you show about medicines training, practice checks and audits?
- 05How have you addressed the earlier concerns about effective, caring and responsive care, which were not reviewed in this inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about staffing, responsiveness, cleanliness, the environment, medicines and infection control; it did not review the whole service or the effective, caring and responsive questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 July 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.
Every inspection of Altham Care Home
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2020Requires improvementup from InadequateWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2020Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 October 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
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.