CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Burnaby Street
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and risks were well managed. Medicines, staffing and fire safety arrangements were found to be safe, although a legionella risk assessment was not in place at the time of inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and preferences were assessed, and staff received induction, training and support. People were helped to make choices, stay healthy and access healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care and supported to pursue their goals and interests.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly updated. People were supported with activities, communication, relationships and contact with their families.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular quality checks and audits, and people, relatives and staff were positive about how it was run. The provider worked with other agencies and reported significant events to CQC.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Burnaby Street is rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some infection-control and record-keeping points to improve.
This was the first inspection since the home registered. The inspection took place on 25 August 2021. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they were happy with their care. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and helped them stay in contact with relatives and the wider community.
Inspectors found good systems for managing risks, medicines, staffing and quality checks. The home was clean and well maintained. Some issues were identified, including a missing legionella risk assessment, one incomplete recruitment record and one staff member wearing an unsuitable fabric mask.
Person-centred care
Staff knew people well and supported their individual choices, routines, goals and interests.
“Staff knew people well and were enthusiastic about providing person-centred care.” from the report
Managing risks
Individual risk assessments were detailed and updated when people's needs changed. Staff understood the risks affecting each person.
“Comprehensive risk assessments were in place for people living at the service.” from the report
Activities and community links
People took part in activities linked to their hobbies and ambitions, both at home and in the wider community.
“Activities were based around people's individual interests, hobbies and ambitions.” from the report
Strong management checks
The home used regular checks and audits to identify and deal with issues. People and relatives were involved in decisions about the service.
“Robust systems of daily, weekly and monthly quality assurance checks and audits were in place.” from the report
Water safety assessment
needs fixingA legionella risk assessment was missing when inspectors visited. The provider took action to resolve this.
“A legionella risk assessment was not in place at the time of inspection and the provider took action to resolve this.” from the report
Infection-control equipment
needs fixingOne staff member was wearing a fabric mask. Management addressed this and explained why fabric masks were not suitable in a care setting.
“One staff member was wearing a fabric mask at the time of inspection.” from the report
Recruitment records
minorOne staff file did not include a complete pre-employment history. The provider gave assurances that the person had been safely recruited.
“There were gaps in one staff member's file for their pre-employment history.” from the report
- 01What action was taken after the missing legionella risk assessment was identified?
- 02How do you now check that staff use the correct protective equipment?
- 03Has the incomplete pre-employment history in the staff file been corrected?
- 04How are people's personal goals, activities and community links reviewed over time?
- 05How will you show families that care plans and risk assessments are updated when needs change?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five CQC areas, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 December 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.
Every inspection of Burnaby Street
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- December 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 December 2019.
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 Rochdale
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. 92 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.