CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Cameron House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People's risks were assessed and medicines were given as prescribed. However, some staff did not use PPE correctly, staff were not always visible in the lounge, and some medicine and thickener records were incomplete.
- Effective?
- Good
- People were supported with nutrition, hydration, oral care and healthcare. Staff had the training needed, and the home was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed positive interactions. People and relatives described staff as kind, caring, respectful and supportive of people's independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and communication requirements. Activities and personalised support were available, although activities were more limited on days when the activities organiser was not working.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a clear management structure, regular audits and action plans. Relatives and staff said communication was good and managers responded to concerns.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Cameron House Care Home is rated Good overall, but Safe Requires Improvement because PPE use and staffing visibility were not always reliable.
This was the home's first comprehensive inspection since it registered under the current provider. It was unannounced and took place on 04 April 2022 and 11 April 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
Inspectors found kind care, good support with health, food, communication and activities, and clear management oversight. People received medicines as prescribed and risks were generally assessed and managed.
The Safe rating was Requires Improvement. Some staff did not use PPE correctly, there were times when staff were not visible in the lounge, and records for 'when required' medicines and thickeners needed improvement. The other four areas were rated Good, giving an overall rating of Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive interactions, and people and relatives said staff were kind, caring and respectful.
“People and their relatives told us the staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Good health support
People had care plans for their health needs, received timely referrals, and oral care had improved since the previous provider's inspection.
“Each person had an oral health care plan, detailing the support they needed to maintain their oral health.” from the report
Strong management checks
The home used audits, clinical reviews and action plans to identify issues and monitor improvements.
“The provider maintained their oversight of the home through monthly provider audits and themed visits to follow up on previously identified actions.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's needs and preferences. Care plans supported choice, communication and independence.
“Person centred plans identified people's support needs and provided guidance for staff on how to meet these needs.” from the report
PPE was not always used correctly
needs fixingInspectors saw some staff wearing masks below the nose or under the chin. The report recommended following current government PPE guidance.
“Care staff did not always use personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately.” from the report
Staff were not always visible in the lounge
needs fixingThere were periods when no care staff were available in the lounge, particularly when staff were helping people in the morning. Managers said staffing levels would be reviewed.
“There were times when there were no care staff available in the lounge area as they were supporting people to get up and those who wanted to stay in their rooms.” from the report
Some medicine records needed improvement
needs fixingRecords did not always explain how a person would show they needed a 'when required' medicine. Thickeners were not recorded when added to drinks, although charts were introduced during the inspection.
“However, this did not always identify how the person would communicate, either verbally or non-verbally, that they needed the PRN medicine to be administered.” from the report
Activities depended on one organiser
minorPeople enjoyed activities when the organiser was working, but care staff did not have enough time to arrange activities on the other days.
“However, on the days the activity organiser was not working, the care staff did not have the time to arrange any activities or spend time with people, especially in the morning.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure staff use PPE correctly at all times?
- 02What staffing levels are now provided in the lounge, especially on days when the activities organiser is not working?
- 03How do you record when thickeners are added to drinks, and how do you check these records?
- 04How are 'when required' medicines linked to each person's verbal or non-verbal signs that they need them?
- 05What activities are available on days when the activities organiser is not working?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of all five key questions for the current registration; a previous focused inspection had only rated Safe and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 May 2022 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, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found safe, well-led care, with night staffing kept under review.
This was an announced, focused inspection on 26, 27 and 28 January 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led after concerns about people's safety at night. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Good for Well-led. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe medicines processes, appropriate recruitment checks, infection control measures and systems for reviewing accidents and incidents. They found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from the concern about safety at night.
The home was not given an overall rating because this was a focused inspection. Caring, Effective and Responsive were not inspected, so there are no new ratings for those areas. The service was newly registered with the current provider, and the previous provider's rating had been Requires Improvement.
Risk management
Risks such as falls, choking, moving and handling, and skin damage were assessed and reviewed. Staff could explain how risks were reduced.
“Risks to people were assessed, monitored and reviewed.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were given by trained staff and records covered receipt, storage, administration and disposal.
“Medicines were safely managed and administered by trained staff.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found arrangements for testing, protective equipment, shielding, distancing and preventing or managing outbreaks during the pandemic.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Leadership and improvement
The new provider had introduced audits that identified improvements, with action plans put in place and reviewed.
“A new auditing framework had been implemented by the new provider which had identified areas for improvement.” from the report
Family communication
Relatives said they were kept informed about their loved one's welfare during the pandemic, including through regular phone calls.
“Relatives told us the registered manager had been very pro-active in keeping them informed of their loved one's welfare during the pandemic.” from the report
Night staffing
minorNight staff said the nights were busy, although daytime staff and relatives felt staffing levels were sufficient. The manager said night staffing would continue to be reviewed as people's needs changed.
“Staff working during the day told us staffing levels were sufficient, but night staff said the nights were busy.” from the report
- 01How many staff are scheduled on each night shift, and how are you responding to night staff saying the nights are busy?
- 02What improvements were identified through the new auditing framework, and which action plans are still open?
- 03How are changes in each person's risks, such as falls, choking or moving and handling, communicated to all staff?
- 04How will you keep relatives informed about their loved one's welfare and contact arrangements?
- 05When will the remaining areas of care, including Effective, Caring and Responsive, next be reviewed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and the service was not given an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 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 Cameron House Care Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- May 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 May 2020.
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.