CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dryclough Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely, followed social distancing and shielding rules, supported testing, maintained hygiene and had plans to prevent or manage infection outbreaks.
- 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, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and visiting arrangements during the COVID-19 inspection.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 16 March 2021. It checked how well the home was prepared to prevent and control infections during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found suitable measures for visitors, including protective equipment, temperature checks, questionnaires and lateral flow testing. They saw visits taking place in line with Government guidance.
The home had regular cleaning, clear COVID-19 signs, appropriate protective equipment, testing for staff and residents, and arrangements to manage possible outbreaks. The home worked with community health and social care professionals to support people with possible COVID-19 symptoms.
The home was inspected but not rated. The inspection looked at infection prevention and control, rather than providing a full rating of all aspects of care.
Visitor infection controls
The home used several checks and precautions to reduce the risk of visitors spreading infection. Inspectors saw visits taking place in line with the guidance at that time.
“Robust visiting protocols had been drawn up and we observed visits taking place during the inspection in line with current Government guidance.” from the report
Protective equipment and cleaning
Staff used a full range of protective equipment consistently. The home also had frequent deep cleaning and clear signs about COVID-19.
“There was clear signage throughout the home on COVID-19, and robust cleaning arrangements, including frequent deep cleaning, were in place.” from the report
Outbreak preparation
Inspectors found that staff training, working practices and staffing arrangements supported the prevention and management of infection outbreaks.
“Staff training, practices and deployment showed the service could prevent transmission of infection and manage any outbreaks.” from the report
Links with health professionals
The home worked with a specialist team of community nurses, other health professionals and social workers to identify and support people with possible COVID-19 symptoms.
“The home worked in close partnership with the Supporting Treatment in Care Homes team.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 16 March 2021?
- 02What testing is currently available for residents and staff, and how do you respond to a positive result?
- 03How would you manage an infection outbreak, and what support would residents and families receive?
- 04What are your current arrangements for visits, including protective equipment and visitor checks?
- 05How do you make sure new residents are admitted safely when there is an infection risk?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 April 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, June 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety needed improvement with medicines and building security.
This was an unannounced inspection on 03 April 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, recruitment files, training records and other service records.
The home was rated Good overall and was rated Good for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found caring staff, personalised care, good support with food and healthcare, suitable activities and a clean, homely setting.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Some medicine records had gaps, so inspectors could not be sure medicines had always been given as required. The front door was also found unlocked, and staff could not always account for who was entering or leaving.
The home was last rated Good in October 2016. The report says the home continued to be monitored and could be inspected sooner if concerning information was received.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were patient and affectionate with people. Inspectors found that people were treated with dignity and encouraged to remain independent.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records described people's preferences, life histories, routines and communication needs. Staff knew people well and supported their choices.
“The care files we saw were person-centred and individualised.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had training relevant to their roles, and recruitment checks were in place. Staff said they felt supported by the management team.
“Training records showed staff had received training that was relevant to their role and enhanced their skills and knowledge.” from the report
Clean and homely setting
Inspectors found the building clean and fresh, with suitable communal and private spaces. The home had also achieved a five-star food hygiene rating in February 2019.
“We observed the building was clean and smelt fresh.” from the report
Activities and involvement
People could take part in activities such as music therapy, knitting and bingo. The manager sought feedback through meetings, surveys and care reviews.
“People and relatives were positive about the range of activities available.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousSome medicine administration records were incomplete. This meant inspectors could not be sure that people had received their medicines as required.
“There were gaps on some people's medication administration records (MAR) which meant we could not be sure people had received their medicines as required.” from the report
Front door security
seriousThe inspection team entered through an unlocked door. Staff were not always aware of who was entering or leaving, creating a risk to people's safety.
“Staff were not always aware of who was entering or leaving the building and could not guarantee that people were safe.” from the report
- 01How are medicine administration records checked now, and how do you make sure every dose is recorded correctly?
- 02What changes were made after the unlocked front door was found, and who checks the security system each day?
- 03How will you tell families if there is a medicine error or a problem with people entering or leaving the home?
- 04How are my relative's personal preferences, routines and communication needs recorded and kept up to date?
- 05Which activities are available, and how do you support people who have a visual impairment or may be at risk of social isolation?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the overall service, including care and premises, and assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 June 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 Dryclough Manor
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
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.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 December 2010.
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.