CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Bentley Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks, accidents, medicines, safeguarding and infection control were managed safely. Staffing feedback was mixed in one area, but an additional carer was deployed permanently during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's needs, choices and preferences. Staff had appropriate training, people were supported with food, fluids and healthcare, and consent and best-interest processes were followed.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so no rating was given in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so no rating was given in this report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective audits, regular meetings and a positive culture. People, relatives and staff were involved in giving feedback and the home worked with health professionals.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Bentley Manor is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with staffing concerns in one area addressed during the inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection after CQC received information about an incident in which a person using the service died. The circumstances of that death were not examined in this inspection and remain subject to further CQC investigation. Inspectors looked at risks linked to accidents and incidents.
Inspectors visited on 23 and 24 January 2024. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, training, audits, safeguarding records, accidents and incidents.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Medicines, risk assessments, infection control and safeguarding systems were found to be safe. People received care based on their needs and choices, and staff worked well with health professionals.
People and relatives praised the staff and said the home was caring and responsive. Staff felt supported by managers. The Safe rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, while Effective and Well-led remained Good.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke highly of staff, describing them as kind, approachable, patient and understanding.
“The staff are very caring and very understanding. They are approachable and will sit and talk with you.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Medicines records were accurate and medicines were given as prescribed. Risks, falls and incidents were recorded, reviewed and used to guide further action.
“Medicines were managed safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Care based on individual needs
Care plans included people's needs, choices, likes, dislikes and food preferences. Staff updated records when people's needs changed.
“People's care plans were person centred and contained detailed information on their needs and choices.” from the report
Strong management oversight
The management team used audits, meetings and action plans to monitor quality and improve care. People, relatives and staff had regular opportunities to give feedback.
“The provider completed a range of audits to ensure quality monitoring was robust and effective.” from the report
Staffing in one area
needs fixingSome staff said staffing levels were not always enough in one area of the home. The registered manager reviewed this immediately and added a carer permanently.
“However, some staff members told us they felt there was not enough staff in one area of the home.” from the report
- 01How many staff are now permanently deployed in the area where staff raised concerns about staffing levels?
- 02How do you check that staffing levels continue to match people's changing needs?
- 03What action will be taken if the separate CQC investigation into the reported death identifies further concerns?
- 04How will you keep relatives informed about any changes arising from that investigation?
- 05What were the main improvements made since the previous Safe rating of Requires Improvement?
This was an unannounced inspection prompted by concerns about accident and incident risks; inspectors inspected Safe, Effective and Well-led, while the circumstances of the reported death and the other key questions were not examined in this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 February 2024 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 2021
Bentley Manor: Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements but were not fully assured about staff PPE practice.
This was a targeted inspection on 4 March 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than all aspects of care.
Inspectors found the home was clean and hygienic. Testing, vaccinations, PPE supplies, isolation, zoning and visiting arrangements were in place. They were assured about several measures, including social distancing, safe admissions and access to testing.
However, inspectors were not fully assured that staff training and practices prevented infection transmission. Staff did not always remove PPE safely. The manager said further training and direct observations would take place immediately.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a Good, Requires improvement or other standard rating, and it should not be treated as a full assessment of the home.
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic, with schedules for frequent cleaning.
“The home was clean and hygienic. There were schedules in place to ensure frequent cleaning took place.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
People living in the home and staff were supported to take part in regular testing and had access to vaccination.
“People living at the home and staff were supported to take part in regular testing and had access to the vaccination programme.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home had risk-assessed visiting arrangements, including an outdoor visiting pod, to help people stay in contact with family.
“Safe visiting arrangements were in place to enable people to have contact with their family.” from the report
Infection-control planning
The home used isolation, cohorting and zoning, and had up-to-date infection-control policies and risk assessments.
“Isolation, cohorting and zoning was used to manage the spread of any infection.” from the report
PPE practice and training
needs fixingInspectors were not fully assured that staff training and practice prevented infection transmission. PPE was not always removed safely, although the manager said further training and observations would take place immediately.
“We were not fully assured that staff training and practices prevented transmission of infection or that staff were using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
- 01What further PPE training and direct observations were completed after the inspection?
- 02How do you check that staff remove PPE safely and consistently on every shift?
- 03What did your infection-control audits show after the inspection?
- 04How are current visiting arrangements risk assessed and updated when guidance changes?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full assessment of all five areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 March 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 Bentley Manor
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2024Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 June 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 Cheshire East
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. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“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.