CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Downing House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control was safe and well managed. This included visitors, admissions, PPE, testing, cleaning and preventing or managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Downing House was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control was managed safely.
This was a planned, announced inspection on 3 March 2021. It was a targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic, focused only on infection prevention and control.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning, shielding and social distancing safely. Staff received specialist training, and people and staff were tested and vaccinated in line with the government programmes.
The home was inspected but not rated. The inspection did not assess the other four areas of care, such as how caring, responsive or well-led the home was.
Clear infection control leadership
The home created a dedicated Covid-19 Administrator role to organise and record testing. Inspectors found this was working effectively.
“This was working effectively at Downing House.” from the report
Staff training and monitoring
Staff received specialist training on preventing the spread of Covid-19. Their practice was supervised and monitored.
“All staff received specialist training so that they understood how to prevent the spread of the Covid-19 virus” from the report
Cleaning and hygiene
Cleaning arrangements were reviewed, domestic staff hours were increased and cleaning checks were described as robust.
“Monitoring of cleaning was robust, and improvements made if required.” from the report
Keeping families in touch
The home supported regular video and phone calls and enabled very limited visiting for some people who were particularly unwell.
“Action was taken to keep friends and families in touch and regular video and phone calls were facilitated.” 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 3 March 2021?
- 02How are visitors, new admissions and people returning from hospital currently tested and supported during any isolation period?
- 03How are cleaning checks recorded, and how quickly are any problems put right?
- 04How are families supported to keep in touch, including visiting arrangements?
- 05What were the home's most recent ratings for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 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, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some activity and oral-health improvements still needed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 17 December 2019. The inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicine records, staff recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicine systems, clean surroundings and good management of risks. People were treated with kindness, involved in their care and supported to make choices.
The rating had improved from Requires improvement at the previous inspection, published on 24 December 2018. Inspectors found improvements in care planning, staff support, the environment, activities and management systems, although activities had reduced while the home was without an activities co-ordinator.
Safe care and medicines
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, staffing levels were sufficient and medicine records and checks were accurate.
“People told us they felt safe and well supported.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people's preferences and supported their dignity, privacy and independence. People and relatives were involved in care decisions.
“People were treated with kindness and respect by staff.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans contained more personal information and were updated when people's needs changed. Staff used people's routines, preferences and life histories.
“Care plans were improved. They contained more personalised information and were updated in response to people's changing needs.” from the report
Improved leadership
The manager had introduced stronger checks, clearer communication and a more structured approach to care planning and decision-making.
“Audits and monitoring procedures were used effectively to manage the service and to make improvements where needed.” from the report
Improved environment
The home had brighter lighting, new décor and a quiet lounge. Some dementia-friendly signs helped people find their way around.
“At this inspection we saw improvements had been made to the home with new décor and brighter lighting.” from the report
Activities had reduced
needs fixingPeople were generally happy with the activities, but there had been fewer activities because the activities co-ordinator was absent. The manager planned to recruit to the post.
“People were generally happy with the activities on offer, although these had lessened due to the absence of an activities co-ordinator.” from the report
Food hygiene rating
minorThe home had a food hygiene rating of 3, described in the report as generally satisfactory. The service said it wanted to improve this at the next inspection.
“The home had achieved a food hygiene rating of 3 prior to our inspection.” from the report
Oral health records
needs fixingPeople's oral health needs were met when required, but there were no specific oral health care plans. The manager contacted the oral health team for training and advice.
“People had their oral health needs met when required, although there were no specific care plans in place for oral health.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for activities, and what activities are being provided now?
- 02What progress has been made in improving the food hygiene rating from 3?
- 03How are each resident's oral health needs assessed, recorded and reviewed?
- 04What are the current plans for the home after the previous proposed closure was reversed?
- 05How will you make sure care plans remain personalised and are updated when needs change?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 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 Downing House
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 March 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 Manchester
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. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.