CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Chorley & South Ribble Short Break Services
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safe medicines management overall, appropriate safeguarding procedures, enough staff and safe, clean premises. They noted that environmental risk assessments were not always up to date and were disorganised.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff received induction, supervision and training. Inspectors noted that annual appraisals were still being developed and some training updates could have been more frequent.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind, respectful and compassionate interactions. People were supported with privacy, dignity, independence and their preferred ways of communicating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, person-centred and regularly reviewed. People were supported to follow their interests and take part in community activities, although complaint investigations and lessons learned were not always recorded in enough detail.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open management team, regular meetings, feedback and action plans. They recommended that audits should be more structured and frequent, with stronger provider oversight.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised short-break care, with some records and consent processes still needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 26 April 2018. Inspectors reviewed records, medicines, staff files, training, audits and complaints. They spoke with three guests, relatives, staff, the manager and outside professionals, and followed the care of two guests.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe premises, suitable care plans, kind interactions and a good range of activities. Medicines were being managed safely overall, although a faulty drugs fridge and other minor issues were identified and dealt with.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Requires improvement and had breaches relating to medicines, risk management and safeguarding. Inspectors said the required improvements had been made and that the service was meeting the current regulations. They still recommended clearer consent records and more organised risk, complaints and quality-monitoring records.
Personalised planning
Care plans included people's needs, choices, preferences and what made a good or bad day. Plans were reviewed before later respite stays.
“Support plans we saw were very well written, person centred and comprehensive documents.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed warm and compassionate support. Staff promoted privacy, dignity, independence and people's preferred communication methods.
“Everyone who was staying at the home was approached with warmth, dignity and respect.” from the report
Good activities and choice
Guests took part in activities in the community and at the home. They were supported to continue their usual interests and help with everyday tasks.
“We noted guests to be involved in a wide range of community activities on a daily basis.” from the report
Improved safety
The report says earlier problems with risk management, medicines and safeguarding had been addressed. Staff understood how to report possible abuse.
“At this inspection we found the provider had made the improvements required in accordance with their action plan” from the report
Suitable environment
The home was clean, hygienic and adapted for people with physical disabilities or mobility needs. Emergency evacuation plans were detailed and accessible.
“The home was clean and hygienic throughout and infection control audits were regularly conducted” from the report
Consent records
needs fixingStaff usually asked for verbal agreement before care or activities. However, formal written consent for care and support was not always obtained.
“However, there was no formal written consent obtained from them or their legal representative in relation to the provision of care and support.” from the report
Risk records
needs fixingEnvironmental risk assessments were not always current or well organised. Inspectors recommended a more structured system.
“However, the environmental risk assessments we saw were not always up to date and were somewhat disorganised.” from the report
Learning from incidents
minorThe home recorded accidents and incidents, but inspectors wanted clearer records showing what had been learned when things went wrong.
“However, it is recommended lessons learned be recorded more clearly in order to move the service forward.” from the report
Quality checks
minorAudits were in place, but inspectors said they should be more structured and completed more often. Provider oversight could also be strengthened.
“However, it is recommended that these be more structured and completed more frequently, in order to ensure a consistently robust monitoring system is in place.” from the report
Staff development
minorStaff had a wide range of training and regular supervision. Annual appraisals were still being developed and some training updates could have been more frequent.
“However, annual appraisals were still in the development phase.” from the report
- 01How do you now record formal consent for care and support, including where a relative or legal representative needs to be involved?
- 02How often are environmental risk assessments reviewed, and how do you make sure they are up to date?
- 03What checks are now made on medicines, including the drugs fridge and staff medicine competency?
- 04How do you record lessons learned from accidents, incidents and complaints?
- 05How often are staff appraisals and required training updates completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with detailed care tracking for two guests and wider evidence from records, interviews and observations. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 June 2018 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, May 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but medicines, safeguarding and risk management were not always safe.
This was an unannounced inspection on 10 and 17 January 2017. Inspectors reviewed care, medicines, staff records, policies and quality checks. They spoke with relatives, staff and the manager, and observed care.
The home provided kind and person-centred support. People had detailed care plans, activities suited to their needs, and staff received training and supervision. Relatives gave positive feedback about the care.
However, inspectors found repeated problems with medicines. They also found that an incident involving physical abuse had not been referred to the local safeguarding authority, and that some risk information was missing or not available to staff. The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, with Safe and Well-led also rated Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good.
Kind staff
Inspectors saw staff communicating well and supporting people in a kind and considerate way. Relatives and people using the home also spoke positively about staff.
“Staff interacted with both service users in a kind and considerate way.” from the report
Person-centred support
Care plans included people's preferences, family connections and activities. Easy-read pictures were used to support people with learning disabilities.
“We found that information throughout many care plans held a good standard of person centred detail.” from the report
Training and support
Staff had training, supervision and appraisals. Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs and had training in areas including medicines and the Mental Capacity Act.
“Staff were skilled and received comprehensive training to ensure they could meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicine safety
seriousMedicine records did not always match prescription labels. Some topical medicines had no identifiable prescription label or were missing from the medicine record, and storage was not always hygienic.
“At this inspection, we looked at how the service managed people's medicines we found that robust systems had still not been implemented.” from the report
Safeguarding referral
seriousAn incident in which one person was physically abusive towards three others had not been referred to the local safeguarding authority. Risk management plans for the incident had not been recorded.
“We found that referrals had not been made to the local safeguarding authority and risk management plans in relation to the incidents had not been recorded.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
seriousFor one person whose behaviour could pose risks to others, the behaviour management plan was not finalised or available in the care file. Staff might therefore not have had all the information needed to provide safe support.
“This meant that staff may not have all the necessary information to support the person in a safe manner.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingThe new quality systems had not yet been fully embedded. They had not identified the continuing problems with medicines and risk management.
“However, the issues we identified with medicines and risk management had not been identified by the service.” from the report
Care plan agreement
minorOne care review had not been signed by the person using the home. A mental capacity assessment had not been completed about their ability to take part in care planning.
“However the document had not signed in agreement by the service user, a mental capacity assessment had not been completed in respect of the person's ability to be involved in the care planning process.” from the report
- 01How are medicines now checked against prescription labels, including topical medicines?
- 02How do you make sure medicine records and controlled medicine records are complete when someone leaves?
- 03What is your procedure for referring incidents involving abuse or physical harm to the local safeguarding authority?
- 04How are behaviour-related risks recorded and made available to every member of staff before a person's stay?
- 05How do your quality audits now identify problems with medicines and risk management?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, following concerns found at the November 2015 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 May 2017 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 Chorley & South Ribble Short Break Services
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Chorley & South Ribble Short Break Services →
- May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Chorley & South Ribble Short Break Services →
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 February 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.