CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bowgreave Rise Home for Older People
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe and received help promptly. Medicines, risk assessments, equipment and fire safety arrangements were checked and found to be managed safely, although staff said they could be busy at times.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received suitable food, health support and training-based care. Staff training records had some gaps, and further training was being sought.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw warm, gentle and respectful interactions. People's privacy, dignity, relationships, faith and individual choices were supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and changed when people's needs changed. People were involved in care planning, supported to attend activities and asked about their end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff said the management was approachable and supportive. Audits, meetings and feedback were used to identify improvements.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and responsive care, with some staffing, training and refurbishment issues to monitor.
The inspection took place on 30 and 31 January 2019. The first day was unannounced. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care, checked the building and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives described good care. Inspectors saw kind interactions, prompt responses to call bells, safe medicines management and care that was adjusted to people's needs.
Inspectors found some matters to keep under review. Staff said they could be busy at times. One recruitment file did not contain a written reference from the previous employer, and the training record had some gaps. Some parts of the building needed refurbishment, which was being planned.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff offering gentle support, reassurance and attention to people's non-verbal communication. Privacy and dignity were also protected.
“We observed interactions between people who lived at the home and staff and saw examples of kind and affectionate gestures and communication.” from the report
Safe medicines
The medicines records checked indicated that people received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were stored securely and staff had relevant training.
“We saw medicines were managed safely. People were supported to take their medicines in a sensitive and compassionate way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans and risk assessments gave staff information about people's needs. These records were reviewed and changed when people's needs changed.
“Care plans and risk assessments were written and accessible to staff so they had information on how to support people.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could choose whether to join activities, including outings and events. Staff supported important relationships and helped people stay connected.
“The residents are given plenty of stimulation. Games, parties, entertainment and outings to interesting places.” from the report
Management checks
The home carried out audits covering areas such as medicines, care records, accidents, the environment and infection control. Feedback from people and relatives was used to make changes where possible.
“A series of checks and audits were carried out to ensure areas of good practice were identified and any areas of improvement could be addressed.” from the report
Staff could be busy
needs fixingTwo staff members said there were times when they were busy and had to prioritise responses. Managers said they would review how staff were deployed.
“Two staff we spoke with said they felt there were times when they were busy and one of the staff members commented they had felt on occasion they had to prioritise who they responded to.” from the report
One reference was not documented
needs fixingOne recruitment file did not contain a reference from the previous employer. A verbal reference had been obtained but was not recorded in the staff file.
“In one file we noted two references had been obtained, but there was no reference from the staff members previous employer.” from the report
Training records had gaps
needs fixingThe training matrix showed that not all staff had attended required training. The manager provided evidence that further training was being sought.
“We viewed a training matrix and saw this contained some gaps as not all staff had attended the required training.” from the report
Refurbishment was still planned
minorSome areas needed redecoration and a communal carpet was marked and faded. An extensive refurbishment programme was being planned, including work to bathrooms, windows, the kitchen and carpets.
“We noted some places in home needed redecoration. We discussed this with the registered manager and the senior operation manager.” from the report
- 01How do you review staffing deployment when staff are busy or several people need help at the same time?
- 02Which staff still need required training, and when will this be completed?
- 03How do you make sure all employment references, including verbal references, are recorded in staff files?
- 04What is the timetable for the planned refurbishment, including the carpets, bathrooms, windows and kitchen?
- 05How can residents and relatives raise concerns, and where is the complaints procedure displayed?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five questions; the home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection and the overall rating remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 February 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.
Every inspection of Bowgreave Rise Home for Older People
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Bowgreave Rise Home for Older People →
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 February 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.