CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Blurton Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed, staffing levels were adjusted when needed, and medicines, infection control and emergency arrangements were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in this focused inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- The inspection was prompted to review caring, but no separate Caring rating is given in the report. Inspectors found staff supported people in line with their preferences and care plans.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive and open culture, regular quality checks and a clear management structure. Some environmental and equipment issues were not dealt with promptly.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and well supported, but some home improvements had no set completion date.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 8 November 2023, including a visit outside standard working hours. Inspectors spoke with all 3 people living at the home, 2 relatives and 2 staff members. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, quality checks and staff recruitment files.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines arrangements and good safeguarding. People were supported to take part in activities and make choices about their lives.
There was a positive culture. People and relatives spoke positively about the home and staff. However, some environmental and equipment concerns, including redecoration and other improvements, had not been dealt with promptly and had no planned completion date. A relatives' survey had also not been completed recently.
This inspection was focused and did not provide separate ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 9 September 2015.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff had training to recognise and report possible abuse.
“People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Safe staffing
There were enough suitably skilled staff, including overnight cover. Recruitment checks included DBS checks.
“The registered manager used a staffing tool to identify safe staffing levels and adjusted staffing levels when required to ensure people's individual needs were met.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in managing risks and were supported to take part in work, volunteering, hobbies and other activities.
“People and staff were involved in the running of the service.” from the report
Open management
The home had a positive culture, regular checks and systems for learning when things went wrong.
“The provider had created a learning culture at the service which improved the care people received.” from the report
Home improvements delayed
needs fixingPeople and relatives said redecoration and other improvements were needed. These concerns had been raised, but the provider had not set a date for the work.
“people and their relatives told us that some environmental/equipment risks were not always actioned by the provider in a prompt manner.” from the report
Relatives' feedback
minorThe home had systems for surveys, but a relatives' survey had not been completed recently.
“However, we were informed a relatives' survey had not been recently completed.” from the report
- 01What environmental and equipment improvements are still outstanding, and when will each one be completed?
- 02How are environmental or equipment risks recorded, followed up and escalated?
- 03When will the next relatives' survey take place, and how will the results be used?
- 04How will you help my relative set and review meaningful goals for independence and quality of life?
- 05How do you make sure advice from health and social care professionals is included in and followed through care plans?
This was an unannounced focused inspection reviewing Safe, Caring and Well-led; no separate ratings were given here for Effective, Responsive or Caring. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 November 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, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements but some worn surfaces and missing staff risk assessments.
This was a targeted inspection on 4 February 2022. It looked mainly at infection prevention, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures were affecting the home. The inspection was announced with less than 24 hours' notice.
The home was clean and tidy. People, staff and visitors were tested for COVID-19, visitors were supported to stay in contact with people, and checks were made on the environment. People were also supported to be independent with cleaning their home.
Inspectors were not fully assured about some infection-control arrangements. Worn surfaces could be difficult to keep hygienically clean, and extra risk assessments for staff at increased risk from COVID-19 were not in place.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall rating or a rated judgement for the five key questions. It is a snapshot of the targeted areas checked on this visit.
Supporting independence
People were encouraged to take part in cleaning their own home as much as possible, and inspectors said they were proud of this.
“People who used the service were supported to be independent with cleaning their own home as much as possible, and they were proud to do so.” from the report
COVID-19 testing
People and staff were regularly tested, and visitors were tested before seeing people.
“People and staff were regularly tested for COVID-19. Visitors were also tested before interacting with people to reduce the risk.” from the report
Keeping in touch
People were supported to maintain contact with loved ones through visits, telephone calls and video calls.
“People were supported to maintain contact with loved ones, which included visits outside of the home, contact via phone calls and video calls.” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors were assured that protective equipment was being used safely and effectively.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Worn surfaces
needs fixingSome surfaces were worn, which inspectors said would make them difficult to keep hygienically clean.
“The home was clean and tidy; however, as some surfaces were worn, they would be difficult to keep hygienically clean.” from the report
Staff risk assessments
needs fixingExtra risk assessments had not been completed for staff who might be at increased risk from COVID-19.
“However, additional risk assessments for staff who may be at increased risk from COVID-19 were not in place.” from the report
- 01Which worn surfaces were identified, and have they now been repaired or replaced?
- 02Have risk assessments now been completed for staff who may be at increased risk from COVID-19?
- 03How are visitors tested and supported to prevent infections?
- 04How does the home support people to stay in contact with loved ones when visits are restricted?
- 05What staffing pressures were present at the time of the inspection, and what measures were used to reduce their impact?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not rate the other key questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 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.
Every inspection of Blurton Road
2 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 December 2010.
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 Stoke-on-Trent
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 £1,190 a week. 93 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“She's shown compassion, patience and a level of understanding that no other carer has given.”
“She maintained a great environment for mum both with the tidiness and cleanliness of the house and Mum and with her caring and understanding attitude.”
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.