CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Andrews Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found safe infection control and visiting arrangements during a targeted COVID-19 inspection.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 28 June 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors found staff were trained and skilled to admit people safely. They found safe processes for infection control, including appropriate use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning and managing outbreaks. The home had enough protective equipment and was clean and hygienic.
The home was facilitating visits in line with government guidance. During a COVID-19 outbreak, indoor visits were suspended except in exceptional circumstances, although essential caregivers could still visit indoors.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating, and it does not assess all five areas of care.
Safe admissions
Staff were trained and skilled to admit people safely and support them in line with national guidance.
“The provider had staff who were trained and skilled to ensure people were admitted safely and continued to be supported in the service in accordance with national guidance.” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors saw staff using protective equipment correctly throughout the home. Staff said there were sufficient supplies.
“We observed staff wore PPE appropriately in all areas of the home.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and hygienic, with cleaning schedules, protective equipment stations and regular checks.
“We follow the cleaning schedules to make sure things are done correctly and have an audit line to follow.” from the report
Safe visiting arrangements
The home was facilitating visits in line with government guidance, with essential caregivers able to visit indoors during an outbreak.
“The registered manager was facilitating safe visiting in line with government guidance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you manage visits if there were another COVID-19 outbreak?
- 02What arrangements are in place for essential caregivers to visit indoors during an outbreak?
- 03How do you check that staff continue to use protective equipment correctly?
- 04How do you maintain staffing levels when there are COVID-19-related staffing pressures?
- 05When were the other areas of care last fully assessed and rated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 July 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, December 2020
Andrews Court Care Home is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care but serious weaknesses in medicines, recruitment, premises checks and oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 24 November 2020. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led, after safeguarding alerts and whistleblowing concerns. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and the manager, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
People said they felt safe and well cared for. Staff were described as kind, caring and available. Infection control arrangements were suitable, and staff had enough time to meet people's needs.
However, recruitment checks were incomplete. Medicines were not always recorded or given safely. Important safety checks on the building had not been kept up to date. The home's quality checks had not found these problems, and there was no registered manager.
The overall rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. This means the home was not consistently meeting the expected standards, although the report also records positive care and action taken during and after the inspection.
Kind and available staff
People said staff were kind, caring and did not make them wait long for help. Staffing levels were enough to meet people's needs in a timely way.
“People who lived in the home told us they did not have to wait long if they requested staff support and that staff were always kind and caring.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable measures for preventing and managing infection during the pandemic.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Personalised care records
Care records contained useful information about each person's needs and how staff should support them.
“Care records were personalised and well-written.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The manager used handovers and meetings to share learning from accidents, incidents and safeguarding investigations.
“Handover meetings were used to inform staff of the outcomes of investigations and any changes made to procedures as a result to reduce the risk of similar events occurring.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousMedicine records were incomplete or inaccurate. Staff had also given one person's medicines covertly without the correct legal authorisation. The manager stopped this practice during the inspection.
“The provider had failed to ensure the safe handling of medicines.” from the report
Recruitment checks were incomplete
seriousSome staff files did not show full employment histories or explanations for gaps. Risk assessments were also missing when DBS checks showed past offences.
“The provider had failed to ensure recruitment processes protected people from the risk of unsuitable staff.” from the report
Building safety checks were overdue
seriousChecks on fire doors, the stairlift, window restrictors, mattresses and water temperatures had not been recorded for months. Evidence of completed checks and fire safety action was sent after the inspection.
“The provider had failed to ensure regular checks were carried out to ensure the safety of the environment.” from the report
Quality monitoring was ineffective
needs fixingThe home's systems for checking quality and safety had not identified the problems found by inspectors. This reduced confidence that issues would be found and fixed promptly.
“The provider had failed to ensure there were robust systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThe home had not had a manager registered with CQC since June 2019. The report says this was a breach of the provider's registration conditions.
“The provider had failed to ensure there was a registered manager at the home since June 2019.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to make sure every medicine dose is recorded accurately, including medicines given only when needed?
- 02How do you now authorise and monitor any medicine given covertly?
- 03Have all staff recruitment files been completed, including employment gaps, references and risk assessments for DBS information?
- 04How often are fire doors, the stairlift, window restrictors, mattresses and water temperatures now checked and recorded?
- 05Who is currently responsible for the home, and has the manager applied to register with CQC?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key questions were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 December 2020 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 Andrews Court Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- July 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 October 2016.
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.