CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Annacliffe Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, staffing, infection control and the environment were generally managed safely, but some emergency evacuation plans and recruitment records needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and people's health needs were supported with help from healthcare professionals. Most people received suitable meal support, but staff did not always provide timely help at lunchtime.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management. The provider had monitoring systems and acted quickly on issues found during the inspection, although those systems had not identified all the concerns before the visit.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Annacliffe Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but some emergency plans, recruitment records and lunchtime support needed improvement.
Inspectors visited the home without giving notice on 11 and 15 May 2023. They spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, observed care, checked medicines and records, and inspected the building.
The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led. People were protected from abuse, medicines were given safely, staffing levels met people's needs, and the home was clean and well maintained.
Inspectors found some shortfalls. Not all personal emergency evacuation plans reflected people's current needs, some recruitment records lacked a full employment history, and staff did not always give timely help at lunchtime. The provider took immediate action on some of these issues, and inspectors made recommendations rather than finding breaches.
Enough staff
Staffing arrangements were suitable for people's assessed needs. People and relatives said staff were available and helpful.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and the provider ensured staff were of good character.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Trained staff gave medicines as prescribed and supported people in a relaxed, person-centred way.
“People received their medicines, as prescribed, from trained and competent staff.” from the report
Respecting choice
Staff sought consent, offered choices and used the least restrictive approach. Care records showed people and their representatives were involved in decisions.
“We observed people being offered choices and their decisions being respected.” from the report
Positive management
People, relatives and staff described the management as open, supportive and approachable. The provider worked with health and social care professionals.
“The culture at the service was open and inclusive.” from the report
Clean and accessible home
The building and equipment were clean, tidy and maintained. The home had adaptations, specialist bathing facilities and secure outdoor areas.
“The premises were clean, tidy, and maintained, and there were no restrictions on family and friends visiting.” from the report
Emergency evacuation plans
needs fixingNot all personal emergency evacuation plans reflected people's current needs or gave accurate instructions for leaving safely. The provider reviewed and amended the relevant documents during the inspection.
“Not all PEEPs reflected people's current needs.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingSome staff files did not contain a detailed employment history or evidence that gaps had been explored. Other checks, including references and DBS checks, had been completed before staff started.
“However not all recruitment files contained a detailed employment history and there was no documentation to show this had been explored.” from the report
Lunchtime support
needs fixingStaff did not always provide timely support with meals because they were completing other tasks. Inspectors recommended reviewing people's lunchtime experience.
“However, due to completing other tasks staff did not provide timely support to everyone.” from the report
Monitoring missed some issues
minorThe provider's audits and checks had not identified all the concerns found during the inspection. Additional safeguards were introduced to strengthen the monitoring systems.
“However, processes had not identified the concerns we noted.” from the report
- 01Have all personal emergency evacuation plans been reviewed, and how do you make sure they stay accurate when a person's needs change?
- 02What has changed to ensure everyone gets timely help during lunch?
- 03How do you check that recruitment files contain full employment histories and that any gaps have been explored?
- 04What additional checks have been introduced after the inspection to make sure audits identify problems promptly?
- 05Why were Caring and Responsive not rated in this report, and how can we understand people's experience in those areas?
This inspection covered Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 May 2023 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, January 2022
Targeted infection-control inspection; inspectors were assured by the home's arrangements, but the service was inspected but not rated.
The inspection took place on 12 January 2022 and was announced with 24 hours' notice. It was a targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures. They were assured that the home was using PPE safely, supporting testing, managing visits and keeping its infection-control policy up to date.
The home was clean and hygienic. People could keep in touch with relatives through face-to-face visits, window visits, online messaging, video calls and telephone calls.
This was not a full inspection of the home's overall quality. The service was inspected but not rated, and the Safe question was also inspected but not rated.
Infection-control training and supplies
Staff had training in infection prevention and control. Inspectors found PPE and hand gel available throughout the home, with enough stocks reported and confirmed during the visit.
“The provider's IPC policy was up to date and had been audited during the pandemic to reflect best practice and current guidance.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic. Cleaning schedules and extra cleaning arrangements covered frequently touched surfaces.
“The home was clean and hygienic. Cleaning schedules were in place with additional cleaning protocols to ensure all high touch points were regularly sanitised.” from the report
Contact with relatives
People were supported to maintain contact with important people through different types of visits and calls. Face-to-face visits were individually risk assessed.
“Window visits, internet messaging, video and telephone calls were also available and used to maintain contact with loved ones.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
People living in the home and staff were tested regularly for COVID-19. The report says non-exempt staff and visiting professionals met the vaccination requirement.
“People living in the home and the staff were tested regularly for COVID-19.” from the report
Links with professionals
The home maintained links with other professionals and obtained medical advice when needed.
“The home maintained close links with other professionals and if medical advice was needed, this was obtained.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing staffing pressures linked to COVID-19, and what effect do they have on people's care?
- 02How are visits arranged and risk assessed now, including visits in bedrooms or a separate visiting area?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested for COVID-19, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 04How do you make sure PPE and infection-control supplies remain available?
- 05How do you obtain medical advice promptly when a resident's health changes?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 January 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.
Every inspection of Annacliffe Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 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
32 live-in carers within about an hour of Blackpool
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 £1,250 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“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.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.