CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Carrington Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home had effective infection prevention and control arrangements. These included visitor checks, safe use of protective equipment, testing, zoning, cleaning and outbreak arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control measures and confirmed that earlier safety improvements had been made.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 26 February 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than the full quality of care.
Inspectors found robust checks for visitors, including temperature checks, testing, declarations and personal protective equipment. Contact with relatives continued through window visits, video calls and phone calls, with compassionate visits allowed in some circumstances.
The home used zoning, colour coding, separate staff break times and extra cleaning to reduce infection risks. Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, admissions, testing, protective equipment, cleaning and outbreaks appropriately.
The service was inspected but not rated. The inspection found that improvements required after an October 2020 inspection had been made, and the home was no longer breaching Regulation 12.
Visitor safety
Visitors had to complete several checks before entering, and protective equipment was provided. The home also had guidance for managing visits safely.
“A robust process was in place for visitors to the home.” from the report
Keeping families in contact
The home used window visits, video calls and phone calls to maintain contact with relatives during the pandemic.
“Contact with relatives had been maintained during the COVID-19 pandemic through window visits, video and phone calls” from the report
Infection control arrangements
The home used zones, colour coding and separate staff arrangements to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“The home had implemented cohorting and zoning effectively to reduce the risk of inspection spreading.” from the report
Improvements made
The home had acted on the concerns found during the previous inspection and was no longer in breach of the relevant regulation.
“We found the provider had made the required improvements and were no longer in breach of regulation.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitor temperature checks, testing, declarations and protective equipment managed now?
- 02How do you keep different areas of the home separated if there is an infection risk?
- 03How often are frequently touched surfaces cleaned, and how are cleaning records checked?
- 04How are residents kept in contact with relatives when indoor visiting is restricted?
- 05How do you test residents and staff and manage any infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the home was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 March 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.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found significant infection-control risks during a COVID-19 outbreak, despite clean premises and suitable PPE.
Inspectors visited the home on 30 October, 2 November and 4 November 2020. This was an announced, targeted inspection after a COVID-19 outbreak. They looked at infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found that COVID-positive and COVID-negative residents were not kept apart properly. Staff were not assigned to one group, risk assessments were incomplete and the laundry process was unclear. They said this put people at risk of infection and significant harm.
There were also positive findings. The home was clean, suitable PPE was available and staff used it correctly. Staff had infection-control training, and extra signs and visitor risk assessments had been introduced. The provider made changes during and after the inspection, including a new zoning system and updated risk assessments.
The service was inspected but not rated overall. Safe had been rated Good at the previous inspection, but this inspection only examined the specific infection-control concerns. The provider breached Regulation 12, and CQC asked for an action plan and said it would monitor progress and return to inspect.
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and tidy, with suitable cleaning products in use.
“The home was clean and tidy, and appropriate cleaning products were being used to clean the home.” from the report
PPE available and used
The home had appropriate PPE, and staff were seen putting it on and taking it off correctly.
“We were assured the provider had the appropriate PPE, and staff were seen appropriately putting on and taking of PPE.” from the report
Infection-control training
Staff were up to date with infection-control training, and the home had dedicated infection-control leads.
“Staff were up to date with infection prevention control training and the home had dedicated infection prevention control leads” from the report
Visitor precautions
The home had increased signs about current guidance and risk assessments for visitors.
“Increased signage had been put in place around the home to ensure that visitors and staff were aware of current guidelines.” from the report
People were not adequately separated
seriousCOVID-positive and COVID-negative residents were not kept in properly separated zones, and staff worked with both groups. Inspectors said this put people at risk of infection and significant harm.
“The provider had failed to adequately assess the risk of and control the spread of infection.” from the report
Risk assessments and laundry process
needs fixingRisk assessments had not been fully updated after the outbreak, including for staff travelling by public transport. The written laundry process did not clearly explain how COVID-positive and COVID-negative laundry should be separated.
“On the first day of inspection the policy and process for the laundering of COVID positive and COVID negative service user's laundry was not clear.” from the report
- 01How are COVID-positive and COVID-negative residents now kept separate?
- 02Are staff assigned to dedicated zones or resident groups, and how is this checked?
- 03What changes were made to the risk assessments after this inspection?
- 04How are COVID-positive and COVID-negative laundry handled and kept separate?
- 05What action plan was sent to CQC, and what progress has been made since the inspection?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control after a COVID-19 outbreak; the full Safe question was not assessed and all key questions will be assessed at the next comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 December 2020 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 Carrington Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 October 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 Wigan
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”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.