CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Chamber Mount
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections, using protective equipment safely, arranging testing and managing admissions safely. Visiting arrangements and the infection control policy were also found to meet the relevant guidance at the time.
- 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 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found safe infection control and visiting arrangements during the COVID-19 review.
This was a targeted inspection on 25 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control, including visiting arrangements, and asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19. The inspection was announced 24 hours beforehand.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, arranging testing, managing admissions and preventing infections. They also found that the infection control policy was up to date.
The home had safe visiting procedures, separate entrances and staff working in only one care setting. It supported people and staff to access COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide a new overall rating for the home or ratings for the other care areas.
Safe visiting
The home had visiting procedures designed to reduce contact and included testing arrangements in line with government guidance.
“Safe visiting procedures were in place. This included minimal contact with others and a good testing process which was in line with current government guidance.” from the report
Reduced cross-contamination risk
Staff worked in only one care setting, which the report identified as reducing the risk of cross-contamination.
“Staff worked in only one care setting, reducing the risk of cross-contamination.” from the report
Vaccination support
The provider supported people living at the home and staff to access COVID-19 vaccinations and booster doses.
“The provider supported people using the service and staff to access COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters.” from the report
Infection control processes
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering protective equipment, testing, hygiene, social distancing, outbreaks and its infection control policy.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now, and how have they changed since the inspection on 25 February 2022?
- 02How are visits currently organised, including testing, visitor access and any restrictions?
- 03How does the home manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures if they arise?
- 04How does the home make sure staff and visiting professionals meet its current vaccination or exemption requirements?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and no other care question ratings were given. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 March 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, March 2019
Chamber Mount was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and person-centred care, with minor issues in refresher training and the complaints policy.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. One inspector reviewed care and medicine records, staff recruitment, training and supervision records. They also spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, clean surroundings and care plans that reflected people's needs, choices and routines.
People described staff as kind and respectful. The home worked with health professionals and responded to complaints. Inspectors did find some gaps in refresher training, and the complaints policy was out of date and not easy for everyone to read, but the manager acted on this during the inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels above the home's assessed dependency level. Recruitment checks were completed and staff said there were enough people to do their jobs.
“There were enough care staff to meet the needs of people and deliver a consistent service.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records described people's needs, preferences, risks and routines in detail. Staff were updated when people's needs changed.
“People received care which met their needs and wishes.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated as individuals in their own home. Staff supported privacy, choice, independence and personal relationships.
“People were well cared for by staff who showed genuine affection for the people they supported.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors checked six medicine records and found them accurate. Medicines were stored securely and regular checks were carried out.
“We checked six MAR charts and saw that they had been completed accurately.” from the report
Good teamwork and oversight
The management team used audits, surveys, complaints and incident reviews to identify improvements. Staff meetings and health professional links supported continuity of care.
“The management team worked together to ensure the day to day running of the service.” from the report
Refresher training gaps
needs fixingSome staff had not yet completed required refresher training. The manager had requested places on external courses, but staff were still waiting for allocation.
“We saw there were some gaps in regard to refresher training.” from the report
Complaints information
needs fixingThe complaints policy was out of date and was not in a format accessible to people who had difficulty reading written English. The manager took immediate action to review and republish it.
“However, this was out of date and not in an accessible format.” from the report
Narrow upstairs corridors
minorSome upstairs corridors could make wheelchair movement difficult. Inspectors said the people with rooms on that landing could walk without assistance at the time of the inspection.
“Some upstairs corridors were narrow which meant that manoeuvring people in wheelchairs would be difficult” from the report
- 01Have all staff now completed the refresher training that was outstanding at the inspection?
- 02Can we see the current complaints policy in a format that is accessible to the person using the service?
- 03How would you support someone who needed a wheelchair to use the upstairs rooms or corridors?
- 04How are changes in a person's needs shared with staff at the start of each shift?
- 05How are families involved in care reviews and advance care planning?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 March 2019 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 Chamber Mount
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 October 2017.
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 Oldham
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. 10 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.