CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Cambeck Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and there were enough staff for the respite stays being offered. Inspectors recommended improvements to medicines guidance and noted that controlled drug records were not always signed by two staff.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and support needed, and people's health, nutrition and communication needs were assessed. Some repairs were slow and the building looked tired in places.
- Caring?
- Good
- People received kind and compassionate care. Staff respected privacy, dignity, culture and personal choices, although inspectors asked the manager to consider age-appropriate language for one person.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and families were contacted before stays about any changes in needs. However, some formal reviews were overdue, and staffing problems limited opportunities to go out.
- Well-led?
- Good
- There was a positive culture, clear management structure and quality monitoring. Some care plans had not been reviewed within a year, but the service had identified this and was arranging the reviews.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but staffing limited outings and some records and reviews were overdue.
Inspectors visited on 15 and 20 November 2023. They spoke with people using the service, relatives, staff and professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment, complaints and quality records.
The home provides overnight short breaks for children and adults with learning disabilities and complex healthcare needs. Inspectors found enough staff for the stays being offered, safe recruitment, suitable training, kind care and good communication with families and professionals.
There were some shortcomings. Staffing problems meant people could not often go out, some care reviews were overdue, and medicines guidance and records did not always match best practice. The building looked tired in places, although some actions were started during the inspection.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating stayed Good compared with the previous inspection. The Responsive rating fell from Outstanding to Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive interactions. Staff understood people's individual needs and respected their privacy, dignity and choices.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Good preparation for stays
Staff contacted families before respite stays to check for changes in needs or medicines. Care plans and risk assessments were updated when needed.
“Staff contacted families before each respite stay to discuss any changes in people's needs.” from the report
Safe staffing and training
There were enough staff for the respite stays being offered. Staff were safely recruited and received training for people's specific needs.
“There were enough staff to meet people's care and support needs and support people to take part in inhouse activities of their choice.” from the report
Good partnership working
Families and professionals reported good communication. The home worked with schools, day centres and health and social care professionals.
“The staff team worked in partnership with families and a range of professionals, including schools and local authority social workers.” from the report
Medicines procedures
needs fixingOne medicine was being given differently from the prescriber's instructions without the agreement being recorded in the medicines file at the time. The home also did not always follow its policy requiring two staff signatures for controlled medicines.
“We recommend the service follows best practice guidelines for having prescriber agreement on file for any changes in how medicines are administered” from the report
Limited outings
needs fixingRecruitment problems meant people could not often go out during their respite stay. The home had reduced the number of respite nights it offered.
“However, it was not always possible to support people to go out during their respite stay due to problems in recruiting additional staff.” from the report
Overdue care reviews
needs fixingSome formal reviews with families and some care plan reviews had not happened within the expected timescale. The home was arranging the overdue reviews.
“However, some care plans had not been reviewed within a year.” from the report
Slow repairs and tired décor
minorSome repairs took a long time because they were handled through the provider's estates department. The internet problem was fixed during the second inspection visit, and a decorator had been booked.
“The building looked tired in places, and repairs were not always completed in a timely way.” from the report
- 01How many staff will be on duty during my relative's stay, and how will you decide whether they can go out?
- 02How do you check that medicines are given exactly as prescribed and that any changes have written prescriber approval?
- 03When was my relative's care plan last reviewed, and when will the next family review take place?
- 04Which repairs or decoration work remain outstanding, and when are they expected to be completed?
- 05How will staff support my relative's communication needs, including allowing enough time to respond?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering the premises and care across all five key questions; the previous overall rating was Good, while the previous Responsive rating was Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 December 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, December 2016
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding responsive care; inspectors found safe, kind support and a strong range of activities, with some medicines work still underway.
This was an announced inspection on 7, 8 and 13 June 2016. One inspector spoke with people using the supported living service, relatives, managers and staff. The inspector observed care, reviewed four people's records and checked staff, training, staffing and management records.
The home provides overnight short breaks for children and adults with severe learning disabilities and complex healthcare needs. It also supports adults with learning disabilities in four supported living properties. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicine systems, suitable premises and good access to health professionals.
All five areas were rated Good except Responsive, which was rated Outstanding. People were supported in a friendly and respectful way, with person-centred records, community activities and encouragement to be independent. The report also describes action taken after two medicine errors, with further work still underway.
Enough familiar staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. There was low staff turnover and no outside agency staff had been used in the previous 12 months.
“We saw that there were sufficient staff available to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
The atmosphere was calm and friendly. Staff explained what they were doing and treated people in a respectful, unhurried way.
“The atmosphere in the services was relaxed and friendly and there was a good rapport between people who used the service and the staff supporting them.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in activities, use local facilities and do household tasks where they could. Inspectors rated the service Outstanding for responsiveness.
“People were encouraged to be as independent as possible. They had busy lifestyles and used local facilities.” from the report
Personalised information
Care records described people's routines, preferences, health needs and risks. Easy-read formats and photographs helped people take part in planning their support.
“We saw that the plans were formatted in an easy read way and contained many photographs that helped people to talk about and be involved in the planning.” from the report
Management checks
Managers held meetings with staff and used audits, action plans and feedback to monitor the service and plan improvements.
“A range of systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.” from the report
Medicine errors
seriousThe report describes two medicine errors at the short breaks service. An action plan was put in place, and further work was still underway to improve safeguards for medicines given covertly.
“We saw that following two incidents involving medicines errors at the short breaks scheme that the service had taken a proactive approach to rectify the situation.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after the two medicine errors, and how are medicines given covertly now checked?
- 02What staffing levels will support my relative during the day and overnight?
- 03How will you review and update my relative's care plan when their health, behaviour or communication needs change?
- 04Which activities and community visits could my relative take part in, and how would you support their independence?
- 05How can our family give feedback or raise a concern, and how will we be told what action has been taken?
This was an announced inspection of both the overnight short breaks service and the supported living service, covering all five CQC questions through interviews, observations and records. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 December 2016 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 Cambeck Close
2 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 April 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Bury
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. 94 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.