CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bowerswood House Residential Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that medicines, staffing, recruitment, risk assessments, equipment and infection control were managed safely. Residents said they felt safe and did not have to wait for help.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's care needs, nutrition, oral health and communication needs were assessed. Staff were trained and worked with health professionals to support residents' needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Caring was not inspected during this focused inspection. The report says ratings from previous comprehensive inspections were used for key questions that were not inspected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Residents were supported to follow their routines, maintain relationships and take part in activities. However, some care records did not yet contain detailed, person-centred information about individual preferences.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management had improved and was working on an action plan, but the audit system needed further development. The provider was no longer in breach of the previous governance regulation.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Bowerswood House Residential Home Limited was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, effective and responsive care, but leadership and governance still required improvement.
This was an announced focused inspection on 16 March 2021. One inspector spoke with five residents, staff, managers, the cook and two relatives. Records, medicines, recruitment checks, audits and environmental checks were also reviewed.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Medicines were being managed safely, risks were assessed, staffing was sufficient and the home was clean. Residents were supported with food, activities, healthcare and contact with relatives. Safe, Effective and Responsive were rated Good.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The home had introduced more checks and an action plan, but its audit system still needed further development. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good, and the previous breaches were no longer in place.
Safer medicines
Staff had their competence checked, records were completed accurately and medicines were stored securely. This was an improvement from the previous inspection.
“Staff completed medicine records accurately and audits of medicines were carried out to ensure medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Responsive staffing
Inspectors saw people receiving help quickly. Staff also had time to talk with residents and support activities.
“During the inspection we saw people were helped quickly and people told us they did not have to wait for help from staff.” from the report
Food and support
Residents had choices about meals and received patient support when eating and drinking. Inspectors saw a pleasant mealtime.
“We observed the lunchtime meal and saw this was a pleasant experience. Staff supported people if this was required and were patient and kind.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home provided activities and helped residents keep in touch with people important to them, including through visits and electronic devices.
“Staff supported people to engage in meaningful activities. There were a range of activities available.” from the report
Listening to residents
The provider sought residents' and relatives' views through surveys, a suggestion box and a board showing residents' requests.
“The provider sought people's views. A suggestion box was available within the home and surveys were provided to relatives to seek their views.” from the report
Leadership and audits
needs fixingThe overall management systems had improved but were not yet consistently strong. The provider said the audit system needed further adaptation so improvements could be acted on.
“The provider and deputy manager acknowledged that the existing audit system, although effective would benefit from further adaptation to enable any improvements required to be actioned.” from the report
Personal information in care records
needs fixingSome care records did not contain enough detailed information about residents' individual preferences. Management had identified this and was reviewing the records.
“Care records did not always contain detailed person-centred information regarding people's individual preferences.” from the report
- 01What further changes are being made to the audit system, and how will you show that identified improvements are completed?
- 02How are you updating care records so they include each resident's personal preferences and routines?
- 03How are medicines audits carried out now, and what happens if a medicines record is incomplete?
- 04How will you build on the work to explore and record residents' wishes for end of life care?
- 05What refurbishment work, including the new lift and shower room, has now been completed?
This was a focused inspection covering Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led, with infection prevention and control included under Safe; Caring was not inspected and ratings from previous comprehensive inspections were used where applicable. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 March 2021 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, December 2020
Bowerswood House Residential Home Limited was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements during the coronavirus outbreak.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 December 2020. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleanliness and infection outbreaks safely. They also found that the infection control policy was up to date.
The home had infection control training, cleaning checks, handwashing facilities, protective equipment and clear signs. People were helped to keep in touch with relatives and to access health professional advice.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated score for Safe.
Staff infection control training
Staff had access to detailed infection control training and said they felt confident using it in their work.
“The provider had ensured staff could access comprehensive and informative training in various aspects of infection control.” from the report
Clean and well-organised environment
The home was clean and free from clutter. Cleaning checks and audits were completed, with action taken when needed.
“The environment had been arranged to minimise the risk of infection and was clean and clutter free.” from the report
Infection prevention measures
The home used visitor information, temperature checks, extra cleaning, protective equipment and clear signs to reduce infection risks.
“Processes to minimise the risk of infection were carried out by staff.” from the report
Contact with relatives
People were supported to use electronic tablets and a designated telephone to maintain contact with loved ones.
“Staff supported people to use electronic tablets and a designated telephone was provided to help people maintain contact with loved ones.” from the report
Access to health advice
People were supported to access advice from health professionals, and their care records were updated to reflect that advice.
“People were supported to access health professional advice and care records were updated to reflect the advice.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection control arrangements changed since the inspection on 09 December 2020?
- 02How do you currently manage visits, including visitor information, screening and preventing the spread of infection?
- 03How do you make sure staff have suitable protective equipment and access to testing?
- 04How are residents supported to keep in contact with relatives if face-to-face visits are restricted?
- 05How do you record and follow up advice from health professionals?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices during the coronavirus outbreak, and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 December 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.
Every inspection of Bowerswood House Residential Home Limited
6 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Bowerswood House Residential Home Limited →
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Bowerswood House Residential Home Limited →
- July 2020Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2020Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 January 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
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.