CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Archmoor Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, safe visiting arrangements and enough staff during COVID-19 pressures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 20 July 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care. The home had 19 people living there, with space for up to 20.
Inspectors found safe processes for admissions, infection control, COVID-19 testing, PPE, cleaning and managing outbreaks. They found enough staff to maintain support if there was a staff shortage. The home was clean, and action had been taken after a recent infection control visit.
Visiting was being managed in line with government guidance. Visits were allowed every day, although indoor visiting was temporarily suspended during a COVID-19 outbreak except in exceptional circumstances. This was a targeted inspection, so the service was inspected but not given an overall rating.
Infection control
Inspectors found safe processes for admissions, PPE, hygiene, preventing outbreaks and responding to infection risks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Staffing cover
The home had arrangements to maintain support if COVID-19 caused staff shortages.
“There were enough staff to provide continuity of support should there be a staff shortage.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and hygienic. Cleaning schedules and environmental checks were in place, with action taken on identified shortfalls.
“The home was clean and hygienic.” from the report
Family visiting
The home was facilitating visits in line with government guidance, and a relative said there had been no problems with visiting.
“We have had no problems with visiting, someone from the family visits every day.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are all the recommendations from the recent infection control visit now fully completed?
- 02What happens to staffing levels if several staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 03What are the current rules for indoor visits during a COVID-19 outbreak?
- 04How much PPE and other infection control equipment is currently available?
- 05When was the latest infection control audit, and were any further issues found?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 August 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, March 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but medicines records and service leadership were not reliable enough.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 30 and 31 January 2020. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records, and observed care.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and well-led were also Requires Improvement. Inspectors found medicines administration records were not always accurate, and required notifications had not been sent to the CQC.
Effective, caring and responsive were rated Good. People had nutritious food, access to health professionals, personalised care plans, respectful support and a range of activities.
The previous overall rating was also Requires Improvement. Effective and responsive improved from Requires Improvement to Good, and earlier breaches about consent, training, nutrition, activities and care plans were resolved. However, the home remained in breach of Regulation 17.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind and approachable. Inspectors observed polite and professional interactions that protected privacy and dignity.
“During our observations we saw staff were polite, friendly and professional.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, likes and dislikes. They were developed with people and relatives where appropriate, and regularly reviewed.
“The plans were detailed and gave staff sufficient information to deliver effective care.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People took part in group and individual activities, and visitors were welcomed. Activities included games, exercise, films, discussions and pet therapy.
“At this inspection people were supported to avoid social isolation and take part in activities.” from the report
Improved support with consent and nutrition
Records about capacity and consent had improved. People had access to drinks, snacks and suitable support to eat and drink.
“We saw best interest meetings were held with relevant parties to ensure the decisions were the least restrictive.” from the report
Medicines records were not accurate
seriousStaff had not always signed records after giving medicines, and there were gaps and unsigned handwritten entries. Inspectors found no evidence that anyone had been harmed, but the records did not reliably demonstrate safety.
“We found errors in relation to the number of medicines two people had because staff had not signed the medicines administration records (MAR) when administered and several gaps in the MAR.” from the report
Required notifications were not sent
needs fixingThe provider had not sent required notifications to the CQC. Inspectors said this was a potential breach of the registration regulations.
“We found the provider had not sent required notifications to the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
Some checks were completed after staff started
needs fixingTwo staff began employment before their disclosure and barring checks had returned. The manager said they were working only for training and were shadowed until competent.
“Two staff had been employed before their disclosure and barring service check had been returned.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure every medicine administration record is signed and complete?
- 02How are handwritten medicine entries checked by managers?
- 03What incidents or other events have not been notified to the CQC, and how will future notifications be made on time?
- 04Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and what is the progress of their CQC registration?
- 05What action plan was sent to the CQC, and what evidence can families see that the problems have been fixed?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five CQC questions, with particular attention to the previous concerns about Safe and well-led care. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 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 Archmoor Care Home
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- August 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 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.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 April 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 Rochdale
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. 92 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.