CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Epworth Grange
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, effective risk assessments, safe recruitment, clean surroundings and safe medicines systems.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals. People were supported with nutrition, hydration, healthcare and decisions made under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and respectful interactions. People were supported to keep their independence, privacy, dignity, beliefs and personal choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's needs, preferences, life histories and hobbies. People could choose how to spend their time and take part in activities and trips.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager, quality audits, meetings and surveys. Staff and people described the management as supportive and approachable.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Epworth Grange is rated Good in all areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with no breaches reported.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 7 and 12 December 2023. They spoke with 9 people, 2 relatives and 8 staff. They also reviewed care plans, recruitment files, training records and quality checks.
The home had enough staff, managed risks, stored and recorded medicines safely, and followed recruitment checks. People received support with food, drink, health needs and decisions about their care.
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw respectful interactions, personalised care plans and activities such as quizzes, music and trips out. The home had systems for complaints, feedback and monitoring quality.
The overall rating is Good, and each of the five areas is rated Good. This was unchanged from the previous inspection, published in October 2017.
Safe staffing and risk management
Inspectors found enough staff to care for people safely. Risks such as falls, choking and skin breakdown were assessed and managed.
“The provider ensured there were enough staff employed to care for people safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect.
“Staff interacted with people living at the home in kind and caring way.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care plans included people's preferences, life histories and hobbies. People could choose how to spend their day, with activities and regular trips out.
“Care plans were personalised and contained information for staff about how people wanted their care and support to be carried out.” from the report
Good food and health support
People had nutrition support plans and said they had enough to eat and drink. Health professionals were involved when needed.
“Each person living at the home had a nutrition support plan in place which detailed any support they required to eat and drink.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used meetings, surveys and audits to gather views and check areas such as medicines, infection control and care plans.
“The management team carried out audits of the building/environment, infection control, medication and care plans.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and record my relative's individual risks, including falls, choking or skin breakdown?
- 02How many staff will usually be available during the day and night, and how do you cover absences?
- 03How will my relative's food, drink and any dietary or swallowing needs be supported?
- 04What activities and trips would suit my relative's interests and abilities?
- 05How often will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing the care plan and raising concerns?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous Good ratings from October 2017 remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 2024 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, October 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, although a recent audit had found some medication errors.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 14 September 2017. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and the manager. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records, and checked the building.
Inspectors found that people felt safe and were treated with kindness and respect. Staff understood people's needs, supported healthcare, offered meal choices and provided activities. Staffing levels, infection control, medicines procedures and risk assessments were found to be suitable.
The home had a clear complaints process and regular checks on the quality of care. The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says this was unchanged from the previous inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and visitors said staff were caring, kind and respectful. Inspectors also saw staff protect people's dignity and privacy.
“We observed staff consistently maintained people's dignity and privacy.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences and needs. Staff also recorded detailed life histories to help them understand each person.
“This was good practice to support people in line with their needs and wishes.” from the report
Choice and nutrition
People could choose where and when to have breakfast, choose meals and have alternatives. Special dietary needs were met.
“A variety of alternative meals were available and people with special dietary needs had these met.” from the report
Good oversight
Management used audits, meetings and daily checks to monitor care, the environment, medicines and infection control.
“The registered manager and provider had procedures in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What medication errors were found in the recent audit, and what changes were made to prevent them happening again?
- 02How often are care plans, risk assessments and people's life histories updated?
- 03How are current staffing levels and skill mix matched to the needs of people living here?
- 04How are relatives involved in reviewing care plans and decisions about care?
- 05What meals, activities and spiritual support are currently available, and how do residents choose between them?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the report says all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 October 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 Epworth Grange
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 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 Bury
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. 94 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.