CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Berkeley Village and Cuerden Grange
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection risks. This included PPE, testing, cleaning, safe admissions and outbreak planning.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not rated in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not rated in this inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not rated in this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not rated in this inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were being followed.
The inspection took place on 16 November 2020 as part of a CQC thematic review during the coronavirus pandemic. It was announced and focused on infection prevention and control in the home.
Inspectors found good practice in staff training, use of protective equipment, cleaning, testing, visiting arrangements and plans for managing a COVID-19 outbreak. They were assured that people were being admitted safely and that infection risks were being managed.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or a full rating across all five areas of care.
Infection control training
Staff had received infection prevention and control training and regular support to keep their knowledge up to date. They also received supervision focused on COVID-19.
“Staff had received infection prevention and control training and were regularly supported to update their knowledge and skills in relation to best practice standards.” from the report
PPE and cleaning
Inspectors found strong processes for using protective equipment and disposing of clinical waste. The environment was clean and cleaning staff understood decontamination practices.
“Processes in place for putting on and taking off personal protective equipment such as masks, gloves and aprons and management of clinical waste were robust.” from the report
Managing outbreaks
The provider had plans for managing a COVID-19 outbreak and assessed the risks for people and staff affected by the virus.
“The provider had risk assessed and implemented contingency plans to ensure an outbreak of COVID-19 was effectively managed.” from the report
Keeping people connected
The home supported people to stay in contact with family and friends during shielding or isolation. It also used technology to support contact with relatives and health professionals.
“People were provided stimulation and supported to maintain contact with their friends and family when shielding or isolating.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now, and how have they changed since this inspection?
- 02How are visitors currently managed, including PPE, testing and visiting someone who is at the end of their life?
- 03How do you test new residents and manage their isolation after admission?
- 04What is your current plan for managing a COVID-19 or other infection outbreak?
- 05What are the home's current ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, which were not covered in this inspection?
This was an announced thematic review focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide a full inspection or ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 November 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.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but medicines records and some other records needed improvement.
This was the home's first inspection since it was registered. Inspectors visited on 9 and 17 July 2019. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and community professionals, and checked care files, medicine records, staff records and management documents.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. The Safe rating was Requires Improvement because some medicine records were incomplete, risk assessments varied in quality, and some audits and action plans were not clear or up to date.
People were generally protected from abuse, there were enough staff, and the home was clean and well maintained. Inspectors also found respectful care, support for choice and independence, suitable activities, good staff training and positive links with health and social care professionals.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive interactions. People said staff were kind, respectful and welcoming to visitors.
“People told us they were looked after by a kind and caring staff team.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs, and saw support being provided in a timely way.
“At the time of our inspection there were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and recruitment practices were robust.” from the report
Staff training
New staff had a detailed induction. Staff received mandatory training, supervision and appraisals.
“All members of staff completed knowledge checks in each area of training, which were assessed by an external organisation” from the report
Activities and independence
The home offered varied activities based on people’s interests, including activities for people staying in their bedrooms or being nursed in bed.
“A wide variety of structured activities had been introduced based on people's preferences and wishes” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean, hygienic and well maintained. Staff used protective equipment and infection control audits were carried out.
“Policies were followed and the home was clean, hygienic and pleasant smelling throughout.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousSome records supporting medicine administration were incomplete. Inspectors said more robust systems were needed to make sure medicines were managed safely every time.
“records to support medicines administration were not always sufficiently completed.” from the report
Risk and incident documentation
needs fixingSome risk assessments lacked relevant information. Internal audits were not always dated, and records did not clearly show the outcomes of incidents or the actions taken.
“Some internal audits had not been dated and action plans had not always been developed to show how and when improvements were to be made.” from the report
Records not always up to date
needs fixingSome care and management documents were incomplete or difficult to follow. Inspectors also found that some action plans had not been developed.
“documents were not always up to date or fully completed and quality monitoring folders were not always well organised.” from the report
Care plan preferences
minorMost care plans were detailed, but feedback about involvement in care planning varied. One relative said a person's preference for a bath was not being followed.
“but he prefers a bath and they give him a shower.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the way medicines are recorded and audited since the inspection?
- 02How do you make sure risk assessments contain all the information staff need?
- 03How are incidents recorded, including the outcome and any action taken?
- 04How do you check that each person's care plan reflects their current preferences, such as bathing choices?
- 05How are complaints investigated and how do you record lessons learned?
This was a scheduled first inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the care provided and the home's premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 August 2019 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 Berkeley Village and Cuerden Grange
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Berkeley Village and Cuerden Grange →
- August 2019GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Berkeley Village and Cuerden Grange →
- August 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 August 2018.
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.