CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Berkeley House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective safeguarding arrangements, detailed risk assessments, enough staff and safe medicines systems. The home and its equipment were clean, maintained and regularly checked.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant general and specialist training, and people received support from a range of health professionals. People's dietary needs, consent and best-interest decisions were documented and understood by staff.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- People and relatives described very positive relationships with staff. Inspectors saw kindness, affection, respect and strong support for people's independence, community involvement, education and employment.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's histories, preferences, goals and preferred staff. Activities were varied and meaningful, and complaints were recorded and acted on.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible leadership, clear quality improvement plans and a culture where people, relatives and staff could influence changes. Staff surveys, meetings and newsletters were used to improve communication and involvement.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found outstanding kindness and person-centred support, with some ongoing work on food and end-of-life care.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 and 23 November 2018. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, managers, nurses and care staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, effective, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Caring was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found people were treated with kindness, supported to make choices and encouraged to become more independent.
The home had enough trained staff, safe medicines systems and detailed risk assessments. Care plans were personalised and included people's goals, preferences and family involvement. Inspectors also found strong links with health professionals and an active approach to improving the service.
There were mixed views about the food, and work to improve dining experiences was still continuing. The home was also developing its arrangements for end-of-life care, including access to some treatments if people needed them.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff built warm relationships and treated people with compassion, dignity and respect. Caring was the only question rated Outstanding.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Building independence
People were encouraged to take part in activities, work, education and community life. Staff helped people achieve goals that had previously seemed out of reach.
“People were encouraged to be active participants in their communities.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, communication needs and goals. Families were involved in planning support.
“People's support plans were tailored to them and had been developed with involvement of their families.” from the report
Strong staff skills
Staff received a broad range of specialist training for the needs of people living in the home. The home also had an in-house trainer.
“There was also high attainment of more specialist training, such as; diabetes, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, acquired brain injuries, dual diagnosis, mobility and falls management.” from the report
People helped shape changes
People and staff contributed to quality improvement plans. Their feedback led to changes such as a sensory room and plans for other shared spaces.
“A 'you said and we did' board had been created to capture people's views and service response and changes implemented to meet people's needs.” from the report
Food experiences varied
minorPeople gave mixed views about the food. Managers were working to improve the dining experience, but this work was not complete during the inspection.
“Mixed views were given regarding the quality of the food provided.” from the report
End-of-life arrangements were still developing
needs fixingThe home had started advance care planning training, but was still working out how people would receive some end-of-life treatments, including pain relief, if needed.
“The management were looking at solutions and a possible arrangement with the district nursing team to pay for this support when required.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the food and dining experience since the inspection?
- 02How would you provide end-of-life pain relief if my relative needed it, and what arrangements are now in place with district nurses?
- 03How would you involve my relative and our family in writing and reviewing their care plan and personal goals?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough suitably trained staff when people's needs change or they want to go out into the community?
- 05How are people's views used to make changes to the home today?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the premises and care provided, and assessed all five CQC questions; the previous inspection was published on 14 April 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 January 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 Berkeley House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 July 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.