CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Blackburn Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Recruitment processes had improved but employment gaps were not fully investigated and recorded. Inspectors found sufficient staffing, safe medicines systems, detailed risk plans and appropriate safeguarding arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable induction, training and support. People's mental and physical health needs were assessed and supported, and staff understood the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Staff supported people's choices, privacy, cultural needs and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care and support plans reflected people's choices and were reviewed when needs changed. People were supported with activities, family relationships, complaints and contact with health professionals.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Quality and safety monitoring had improved through audits, management visits and meetings. The new manager was described positively, although they were not yet registered with CQC.
What inspectors found, May 2018
Blackburn Road is rated Good overall, but inspectors found recruitment checks were not always complete and rated the home Requires Improvement for safety.
Inspectors made an unannounced, comprehensive visit on 30 April 2018. They spoke with people living in the home, staff and managers. They reviewed care and medicines records, staff files, training records, audits and other management documents.
People said they felt safe and described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, detailed care plans and good support for mental health, independence, activities and relationships.
The main weakness was recruitment. Employment gaps in three staff files had not been properly explained and recorded by the provider's head office. The home also had a small number of other issues, including limited detail in its emergency plan and an unclean bathroom floor.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, which means the home had made progress but still needed to improve how it protected people from possible unsuitable staff.
Kind and respectful staff
People consistently described staff as caring and respectful. Inspectors also observed warm and friendly interactions.
“People spoken with during the inspection told us staff were kind, caring and respectful towards them.” from the report
Enough staff available
People said staff were available for activities, domestic tasks and emotional support. Inspectors observed staff responding promptly to requests.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans covered people's needs, preferences and goals. People were involved in reviewing their plans and were encouraged to build independence.
“Each person had detailed support plans which reflected their choices and preferences.” from the report
Improved management checks
The home had strengthened its systems for checking quality and safety. Audits identified shortfalls and the actions needed to address them.
“At this inspection, we found the required improvements had been made.” from the report
Complaints were followed up
The four complaints received since the previous inspection had been investigated and answered. People said they felt able to raise concerns.
“Records we reviewed showed all of these complaints had been thoroughly investigated and a response provided;” from the report
Incomplete recruitment records
seriousThree staff files did not fully record the applicants' employment histories or the reasons for gaps. This could make it harder to identify unsuitable staff.
“Recruitment processes needed to be further improved to help ensure people were properly protected from the risk of unsuitable staff;” from the report
Emergency plan lacked detail
needs fixingThe business continuity plan did not say clearly which agencies staff might need to contact during an emergency.
“Although a business continuity plan was in place, this lacked detail about the agencies staff might need to contact in the event of an emergency.” from the report
Bathroom floor needed cleaning
minorInspectors found that one bathroom floor was not particularly clean. The manager said this would be dealt with.
“During the inspection, we noted the floor in one bathroom was not particularly clean.” from the report
Accessible information standard
needs fixingThe manager was unaware of the Accessible Information Standard and said they would check its requirements to make sure the home complied.
“The manager told us they were unaware of this standard but that people's communication needs were always considered as part of the assessment and support planning process.” from the report
- 01Have all employment gaps in staff records now been investigated and documented?
- 02Who at head office checks recruitment files, and how does the home assure itself that these checks are complete?
- 03Has the business continuity plan been updated to list the agencies staff should contact in an emergency?
- 04Has the home checked and acted on the Accessible Information Standard?
- 05Has the manager completed the application to register with CQC?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the accommodation and care provided; the previous inspection was on 5 April 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 May 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.
What inspectors found, May 2017
Blackburn Road was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care but weaknesses in staff recruitment and quality checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 April 2017. One inspector visited, spoke with people living in the home, staff and the registered manager, and reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.
People said they felt safe and supported. Inspectors saw caring and respectful interactions. Staff supported people with independence, rehabilitation goals, activities, health appointments and daily living skills. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were Good.
The home was not always safe because one staff recruitment file did not include all required checks. It was also not always well-led because audits had failed to identify repeated problems in care records and one person's medicines record. The overall rating was Requires Improvement, with two regulations breached.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and that staff were available to support them. Staffing levels were found to be sufficient for people's needs.
“People who used the service told us they felt safe with the staff who supported them.” from the report
Good risk support
Care records contained detailed information about risks and the support needed to manage them. Plans were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“Care records we reviewed included detailed information about the risks people might experience.” from the report
Kind, individual care
Inspectors saw warm and friendly interactions. People were supported to make choices, build independence and work towards their rehabilitation goals.
“During the inspection we observed warm and friendly interactions between staff and people who used the service.” from the report
Personalised activities
People had individual activity planners and were supported with interests such as voluntary work, football, arts and crafts and community activities.
“People who used the service had an individual weekly activity planner which was agreed between them and the staff who supported them.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment checks
seriousOne staff file did not show the required additional checks about why previous work with vulnerable people had ended. Inspectors said this could leave people at risk of unsuitable staff.
“This meant recruitment processes were not sufficiently robust to protect people who used the service from the risk of unsuitable staff.” from the report
Weak action tracking
seriousAudits did not always set out who would fix a problem or when it should be completed. The same problems were found in two consecutive audits, including an inaccurate medicines record.
“The lack of robust quality assurance systems was a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
- 01What additional checks are now completed when an applicant has previously worked with vulnerable adults or children?
- 02How do you make sure every action from an audit has a named person responsible and a clear completion date?
- 03How do you check that medicines records remain accurate after an error or an audit finding?
- 04How are people living in the home involved in interviewing and choosing new staff?
- 05What evidence can you show that the improvements required after this inspection have been completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and included discussions with people, staff and the manager, plus reviews of care, medicines, staff and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 May 2017 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 Road
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 April 2012.
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.