CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Blythe Bridge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, effective risk assessments, safe medicines management and a clean home.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training, induction and supervision. People were supported with food, healthcare and choices, but oral health care plans were not in place.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind, attentive and respectful. People were involved in decisions and their privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was based on people's needs, preferences and interests. People were supported to use the local community, maintain relationships, develop independence and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers had improved staffing arrangements and quality checks since the previous inspection. The report describes a supportive culture where people and staff were involved.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but oral health care plans were not in place.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 3 October 2019. One inspector spoke with two people, two care staff and managers. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, audits and other service records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments and clean surroundings. People were supported to make choices, develop skills, access healthcare and take part in activities.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement. Staffing levels and checks on staffing had been improved. Inspectors noted that oral health care plans were not in place, although the manager said action would be taken.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and risk management arrangements.
“People told us they felt safe living in the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and understanding. Inspectors found that privacy, dignity and involvement in decisions were promoted.
“People were cared for by staff who were kind and attentive to their needs.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to take part in everyday tasks, follow their interests and access the community. The service aimed to help people build skills and become more independent.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Better management checks
Quality and safety checks were in place, including checks on staffing, hygiene, firefighting equipment and water temperatures.
“We saw systems were in place to assess, monitor and to improve the quality and safety of the service provided to people.” from the report
Oral health records
needs fixingInspectors found no oral health care plans in the records they reviewed. The manager said people had routine dental checks and promised to add the plans.
“We did not see any oral health care plans in place and the registered manager confirmed these were not in place.” from the report
Awareness of information standards
minorThe manager was not aware of the Accessible Information Standard. However, inspectors found that information was being provided in suitable formats, such as easy-read or pictorial documents.
“Although the registered manager was unaware of the AIS, they were able to demonstrate that information provided to people was in a format suitable to the individual.” from the report
- 01Have oral health care plans now been completed for every person, and how are dental needs reviewed?
- 02How do you check each day that staffing levels match people's assessed needs?
- 03What evidence can you show that quality checks have continued since the inspection?
- 04How do you provide information in a format each person can understand?
- 05How are people involved in decisions about their care, activities and future independence?
This inspection looked at the care and premises and assessed all five CQC questions; it was a planned follow-up to the previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 October 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.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; the home had left Special Measures, but staffing consistency, medicine records and respectful language still needed attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 September 2018. Two inspectors spoke with people, relatives, the manager and care staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staffing records, complaints, accidents, training and quality checks.
The home had improved since its previous inspection, when it was rated Inadequate and placed in Special Measures. It was no longer Inadequate or in Special Measures. However, inspectors found that staffing was not always consistent, some staff still needed training, and instructions for applying one person’s cream were not detailed enough.
Inspectors rated Effective, Caring and Responsive as Good. They rated Safe and Well-led as Requires Improvement because the home needed to make sure improvements were sustained and that people consistently received the staffing and care they were assessed as needing.
People’s safety improved
Inspectors found that people’s risks were assessed, monitored and managed. Safeguarding procedures were understood and concerns were reported when required.
“People were protected from harm and their risks were assessed and mitigated.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people well and supported their hobbies, interests and communication needs. People were involved in their care plans and daily choices.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Healthcare and nutrition
People had access to healthcare professionals and were supported to eat and drink enough. They had choices about food and were involved in shopping and cooking.
“People's healthcare needs were met and they were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a healthy diet.” from the report
Improved admissions
The home had strengthened its admissions process after problems at the previous inspection. New people had their needs assessed before moving in.
“The admission process included gradual visits to the home prior to admission to ensure their needs could be met and that they were compatible with the other people who used the service.” from the report
Staffing was not always consistent
seriousThere had been occasions when the planned staffing level was not maintained. This created a risk that people might not receive their commissioned one-to-one support.
“However, staff rotas and handover records showed that there had been recent occasions when this staffing level was not maintained.” from the report
Medicine instructions
needs fixingOne person’s prescribed cream did not have clear instructions about where it should be applied. This could mean staff did not apply it as prescribed.
“There was no detail recorded about where the cream should be applied.” from the report
Respectful language
needs fixingInspectors found examples of language that could undermine people’s dignity, including language that was infantilising. The home was asked to seek advice and guidance.
“However, we did find some examples of undignified language being used by staff.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingOne provider audit said the home was mostly overstaffed, but inspectors found this was not the case. The audit had not identified the risk to one-to-one support.
“This meant the quality audit had not been fully effective in identifying areas for improvement.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure there are consistently enough staff to provide each person’s commissioned one-to-one support?
- 02Have all staff, including night staff, completed the training needed to administer medicines safely?
- 03How do you record and check the instructions for applying prescribed creams?
- 04What action have you taken to make sure staff use respectful language and protect people’s dignity?
- 05How do your quality checks identify staffing risks and confirm that improvements are being sustained?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 November 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 Blythe Bridge
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 November 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 Staffordshire
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 £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.