CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Carr Bank House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks were assessed and staff had guidance to manage them. Medicines were given as prescribed, but records for medicines given when needed were not always clear, and some incidents were not recorded on the correct form.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received training, induction and supervision. People were supported with food, healthcare and mental health appointments, and the service worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and positive interactions. People were involved in decisions, supported to express their views and encouraged to do things for themselves.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People's preferences, communication needs and support were recorded, and people could access the local community. However, not all support needs were in individual care plans and end of life wishes had not been recorded.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers used audits and reviewed care plans. Staff, people and relatives gave positive feedback, although a more formal monthly audit by a provider director was still being introduced.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Carr Bank House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some records and care plans needing improvement.
This was a planned inspection on 16 June 2021. Two inspectors spoke with four people, staff, a relative and health and care professionals. They observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they liked living there and liked the staff. Inspectors found that people were treated kindly, supported to make choices and helped to maintain their health and independence.
There were some areas to improve. Not all support needs were included in individual care plans. Some incident records and records for medicines given when needed were not always clear. The home also needed to record people's end of life wishes.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw kind and positive interactions. People and relatives said they liked the staff and the support they received.
“We observed kind and positive interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about meals and their care. They were encouraged to complete tasks themselves and could access the local community independently when able.
“People were encouraged to be involved in their care and prompted to complete things for themselves where possible.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had refresher training, supervision and induction. New staff shadowed experienced workers before supporting people alone.
“All staff had completed refresher courses, with more booked and planned in the coming months, including training in mental health awareness.” from the report
Clean and infection-aware home
The home was clean, cleaning had increased and staff used protective equipment. Staff and residents took part in regular COVID-19 testing.
“The home was clean throughout. Cleaning schedules had been increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Care plans did not contain everything
needs fixingSome support needs were recorded in summary documents and reviews but not in the person's separate care plan. Inspectors recommended following national guidance so care plans capture all support needs.
“Not all this information was captured in peoples separate care plans, for example continence support, although it was in the documents mentioned above.” from the report
End of life wishes were missing
needs fixingPeople's end of life wishes had not been discussed or recorded at the inspection. The manager said this would be added during care plan reviews.
“People's end of life wishes had not been discussed or recorded.” from the report
Some records were unclear
needs fixingSome incidents were not recorded on an incident form. Records for medicines given when needed were kept in two places, which could make patterns harder to identify.
“Records for medicines administered 'as required' were not always clear as they were recorded on two separate records.” from the report
Weekend extra support needed planning
minorThere was one care worker on duty at all times. Extra management support for outings was not available at weekends, so weekend support had to be planned in advance.
“However, this was not available at the weekend, so any additional weekend support needed had to be planned in advance.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every person's support needs, including continence support, are included in their individual care plan?
- 02How are medicines given when needed recorded now, and how do you check for patterns such as people refusing medicines?
- 03How are people's end of life wishes discussed and recorded?
- 04How would you arrange extra staff support for a weekend appointment or community outing?
- 05What progress has been made with the planned refurbishment of the parts of the building that looked tired?
This was a planned inspection of the re-registered care home covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 July 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 Carr Bank House
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 April 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.