CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Eachstep Blackley
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safe recruitment, safeguarding and infection control systems. However, some medicines were out of stock, some records were incomplete, and staffing levels provided little flexibility at times.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and support, people received healthcare input, and nutritional risks were identified. Some monitoring records were not accurate, and extra mealtime support was planned.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed to be patient, kind and respectful. People and relatives said staff listened, gave choices and treated people with dignity.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care planning was detailed on the nursing households and people’s needs were generally met. Some handwritten care plans did not accurately reflect changes, activity hours were reduced, and end-of-life wishes were not always recorded.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were visible and approachable, and relatives and staff felt able to raise concerns. New electronic systems and other improvements still needed to become established across the home.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Eachstep Blackley is rated Good; inspectors found kind, effective care, but medicines records and staffing flexibility needed improvement.
Inspectors visited the home in February 2023. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and safety records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives generally described staff as kind, respectful and approachable. Inspectors also found the home clean, with suitable healthcare support and systems for handling complaints and safeguarding concerns.
There were some weaknesses. Some prescribed medicines were not available, medicine records were incomplete, and some medicine instructions were not detailed enough. Staffing had little flexibility at busy times, and one person waited nearly an hour for help with a meal.
The home was making changes, including improving its electronic care and medicine systems, reviewing staffing levels and adding support at mealtimes. The report made a recommendation about keeping accurate and complete medicine records, but did not report any breached regulations.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw calm, patient and respectful interactions. People and relatives spoke positively about the care and support.
“We observed positive interactions on all the households. Staff were seen to be patient, respectful and kind when speaking with people.” from the report
Good healthcare support
The home worked with healthcare professionals to monitor changing needs and reduce the risk of hospital admission where possible.
“Nursing staff from the 'Go to Doc' team visited the home twice a week.” from the report
Safe and clean environment
The home was clean and had safety checks, equipment checks, evacuation plans and aids to support people’s independence.
“We found the home to be clean throughout. Domestic staff were allocated to a floor and had cleaning schedules to follow.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received induction, training, supervision and meetings. They said they felt supported and listened to by managers.
“A thorough programme of induction, training and support was provided.” from the report
Medicines were not always safely managed
seriousSome people missed prescribed doses because medicines were not in stock. Some instructions and records were not detailed or complete enough, and some time-sensitive medicines were not given at the directed times.
“Some people were unable to have doses of their prescribed medicines because the medicines were not in stock.” from the report
Incomplete care and monitoring records
needs fixingSome handwritten care plans and monitoring charts were not up to date. Inspectors also found that one person’s monitoring records were not accurate, which could affect recognition of changing needs.
“Handwritten care plans and monitoring charts were not always kept up to date.” from the report
Limited staffing flexibility
needs fixingStaffing levels were based on people’s needs, but staff and inspectors found little flexibility at busy times. One person waited nearly an hour for help with a meal.
“We saw one person was sat at the dining table with a bowl of porridge in front of them for almost an hour, until staff came to assist.” from the report
Activities were limited
minorActivity staff were available, but their hours had been reduced. This restricted the range of activities offered.
“At present hours were reduced, therefore restricting the range of opportunities made available.” from the report
End-of-life wishes not always recorded
needs fixingPeople’s wishes about end-of-life care and what should happen after death were not always documented.
“People's wishes for their care at the end of their life and after their death were not always recorded.” from the report
- 01Have all medicine supply problems been resolved with the pharmacy and prescribers?
- 02How do you now make sure time-sensitive and as-needed medicines are given safely and recorded completely?
- 03What staffing is available at mealtimes and on the nursing households when someone needs extra help?
- 04Have all care plans and monitoring charts been transferred and checked on the electronic system?
- 05How do you record a resident’s wishes about end-of-life care if they or their family do not want to discuss them at first?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control, with records and further information also reviewed remotely. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 April 2023 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 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control and COVID-19 safety measures were in place.
This was a targeted inspection on 20 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, and asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19. The visit was announced 24 hours in advance.
The inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections among visitors and residents. They were also assured about the use of PPE, testing, social distancing, admissions, cleaning, outbreak management and the infection control policy.
The home had trained all staff, including domestic staff, in care tasks. It had plans for staff wellbeing and emergencies, including extra bedding if staff needed to stay overnight.
The home was inspected but not rated. The Safe question was also inspected but not rated. This report does not provide ratings for the other four questions.
Staff could help in emergencies
All staff, including domestic staff, had care training. This meant they could be used for care tasks during emergencies.
“All staff, including domestic staff, received training in care, which meant they could be deployed for care tasks during emergencies.” from the report
COVID-19 risks were tracked
Managers tried to identify the source of COVID-19 cases and shared this information with the local health protection team.
“Managers attempted to track the source of COVID-19 in cases among staff and people at the home, which they shared with the local health protection team.” from the report
Separate end-of-life unit
The provider created a separate unit for people at the end of their lives who returned from hospital with COVID-19. This allowed them to be supported by familiar staff and receive visitors.
“The provider created a separate unit for people the end of their lives who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19.” from the report
Emergency planning
The business continuity plan included staff wellbeing as a risk. The home also bought extra mattresses and bedding in case staff needed to stay overnight.
“The provider's business continuity plan identified staff wellbeing as a potential risk to consider and monitor.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering PPE, testing, visitors, admissions, hygiene and outbreak management.
“We were assured that the provider was using personal protective equipment (PPE) effectively and safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing COVID-19 or other infection outbreaks?
- 02How do you make sure staff and visiting professionals meet the vaccination requirements described in the report?
- 03How would you maintain care if COVID-19 caused staff shortages?
- 04Are all staff still trained so they can help with care tasks during emergencies?
- 05What ratings or inspection findings apply to Caring, Effective, Responsive and Well-led, as this report did not rate them?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the home was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 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.
Every inspection of Eachstep Blackley
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- October 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 October 2021.
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.