CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Blackburn (Florence House)
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but medicines records were not always accurate.
Inspectors visited without notice on 10 and 11 May 2023. They spoke with people living in the home, family members, staff and health professionals. They also checked care records, medicines, staffing, the building and infection control.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, access healthcare and take part in activities and outings.
Inspectors found gaps and inaccuracies in some medicines records. There was no evidence that medicines had been given incorrectly or that anyone had been harmed. The provider said these issues were addressed after the inspection.
The home was rated Good overall, the same as at the previous inspection in 2018. Caring improved from Requires Improvement to Good. The report made one recommendation about the checking and oversight of the service.
Promoting independence
People were encouraged to make decisions about their care and take part in everyday activities. Their care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed.
“People's independence was promoted, and staff encouraged people to participate in their care decisions.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw caring interactions, and people appeared settled and comfortable. Families and professionals also gave positive feedback about the staff.
“Staff were observed engaging with people during the inspection. The interaction was caring and people appeared settled and comfortable.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to use local services, attend groups, go on outings and maintain relationships with family and friends.
“Activities were taking place in the service and the local community.” from the report
Good access to health support
People were referred to health professionals when needed and had regular health checks. Health passports were up to date.
“Referrals were seen to health professionals around people's physical and mental health, and people were supported to have access to regular health checks.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousSome medicines administration records had gaps and did not always match the medicines or allergy information. Inspectors found no evidence that medicines had been given incorrectly, but the records were not reliably checked.
“There were some gaps were noted in the MAR charts with no explanation offered.” from the report
Weakness in audits
needs fixingThe home's medication audits had not identified the recording problems found during the inspection. The provider was asked to improve oversight and governance.
“The audits viewed had not picked up the issues identified during the inspection around medication recording.” from the report
Building and quiet spaces
needs fixingWardrobes needed securing, although this was done after the inspection. Some décor needed updating, and a professional said the layout and noise could sometimes increase incidents or distress.
“During my experience of Florence House there were times during my visits that the environmental lay out could escalate incident and behaviours especially the noise levels for the service user I visited.” from the report
Communication with staff
minorSome staff felt communication about changes in the service could be improved. Feedback from surveys was also limited.
“regarding care plans yes but as for other stuff no.” from the report
- 01How are medicines administration records now checked for gaps, incorrect medicine names and allergy information?
- 02What evidence can you show that the recommendation about medication oversight has been completed?
- 03How often are agency staff used, and how do you maintain consistency for people who need familiar staff?
- 04What changes have been made to the décor and to provide quieter spaces?
- 05How are staff told about changes in the service, and how can families be kept informed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control, and it examined concerns about medicines, activities, infection control, staff engagement and management. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 June 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, September 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and responsive care, but caring was Requires Improvement because communication was not always suitable.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 21 and 22 August 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with five people, three relatives and staff, and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, staffing rotas and audits.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, staff had suitable training, people's support plans were detailed, and people were supported with activities and daily choices.
Caring was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors saw one incident where a staff member did not communicate properly with a visually impaired person while they were moving around the home. They also recommended improvements to cleanliness and noted that an advocacy service was not currently available.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in June 2017. The report says earlier problems with medicines, staff induction and training, notifications to CQC, and quality audits had been addressed.
Medicines were managed safely
Inspectors found trained staff, complete medicines records and safe storage. Controlled medicines were checked against the records.
“We found medicines were stored safely, the medicine administration records were completed without any gaps and controlled drugs were safely stored.” from the report
Staff training had improved
Staff had induction, relevant training, regular supervision and annual appraisals. This addressed a concern from the previous inspection.
“Training courses were available to staff which were relevant to their roles.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans recorded people's likes, dislikes, communication needs, cultural needs and goals. People were involved in developing and reviewing their plans.
“Support plans that were in place were person centred and evidenced the person had been involved in the development and review of these.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to use the community, follow hobbies and do everyday tasks for themselves, such as making food and drinks.
“Throughout our inspection and from records we looked at, we saw people were encouraged to be independent.” from the report
Stronger management checks
The registered manager and regional managers carried out regular audits. Action plans were used when audits found issues.
“Audits in place within the service were sufficiently robust to identify issues and concerns.” from the report
Communication with a visually impaired person
needs fixingInspectors saw one staff member fail to explain the environment properly to a visually impaired person while they were moving around the home. The manager said this would be investigated and addressed.
“This staff member appeared to have complete disregard of the environment and the need to explain this to the person.” from the report
Some areas were not clean
needs fixingInspectors found dirt on windows, a sofa and parts of communal areas. They recommended that the home improve its approach to cleanliness and infection control.
“We recommend the service considers the needs of the service in relation to infection control and ensures the cleanliness of the service is improved.” from the report
No advocacy service in place
minorThe manager said the previous advocacy service was no longer operating and that enquiries were continuing. This may matter for people without relatives or friends who can speak up for them.
“It is important that people without any involvement from relatives or friends has someone independent acting on their behalf or in their best interests.” from the report
- 01What action was taken after the incident involving communication with a visually impaired person?
- 02How do you check that staff explain hazards and the environment to people with visual or other sensory impairments?
- 03What improvements have been made to the cleanliness of windows, communal areas and furniture since the inspection?
- 04Which independent advocacy service can people use if they do not have relatives or friends to support them?
- 05How do you make sure staffing levels remain high enough to support community activities and outings?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the visit taking place over 21 and 22 August 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 September 2018 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 Blackburn (Florence House)
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 May 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 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.