CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fir Trees
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People were protected from abuse and medicines were stored safely, but risk assessments were not always robust. Inspectors found overly hot water, unsecured items and mixed feedback about staffing levels.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in and staff had suitable training. The building and some dietary records needed further improvement.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Staff were observed respecting privacy, dignity, independence and people's choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People received personalised care and took part in activities and relationships that mattered to them. Some personal information and communication needs were not recorded clearly enough.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open culture and systems for gathering feedback and making improvements. Record keeping and some risk controls still needed strengthening.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found that safety checks and risk management needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection over two visits. Inspectors reviewed care, medicines, staffing, records and the building. They spoke with people living there, relatives and staff.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. People and families described kind staff, good support and an open management team.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found risks from very hot water, unsecured items and incomplete risk information. The manager acted straight away when these issues were raised, but inspectors said risk management needed further development.
The home also needed improvements to damaged décor, records about communication and some care details. CQC made recommendations about the environment and the Accessible Information Standard.
Kind and respectful staff
People and families described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff protecting people's privacy and supporting their independence.
“Staff are good and always kind and caring. They really do look after them.” from the report
Good activities and choice
People were supported to choose their care and take part in meaningful activities. Visitors could come at any time.
“The activities are great.” from the report
Medicines generally safe
Medicines were securely stored and people received them as prescribed. Staff giving medicines had training and their practice was checked.
“Medicines were securely stored, and people were receiving support to take their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff described a positive culture. The manager responded quickly when inspectors raised concerns.
“Registered manager always has an open door, I feel able to raise anything.” from the report
Risk controls were not robust enough
seriousInspectors found very hot water that could cause scalding, gloves accessible in some areas and unsecured items that could harm a person. Another person's risk from using a flammable skin cream while smoking had not been assessed.
“The provider had not always effectively assessed risk to ensure people were safe.” from the report
Staffing levels were mixed
needs fixingSome relatives and staff said there were times when staffing was not sufficient or responses to bells took too long. The provider said staffing and deployment would be monitored.
“Sometimes there are not always enough staff. It can take time for them to respond to [family members] bell… .” from the report
Building needed repair and updating
needs fixingDamaged wallpaper, flooring, skirting boards and walls made some areas harder to clean. The décor also did not fully support people living with dementia.
“A number of areas of the home were outdated and paintwork and walls were damaged, making it difficult to ensure effective cleaning.” from the report
Some records lacked detail
needs fixingCare records did not always capture people's preferences, communication needs, dietary support or some medicine instructions clearly. The provider was introducing an electronic care planning system.
“Records did not reflect how the provider was meeting the Accessible Information Standard.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure hot water is kept at a safe temperature throughout the home?
- 02How are staffing levels and staff deployment monitored at busy times, and how quickly are call bells answered?
- 03Which damaged areas of the building have been repaired, and what is the timetable for the remaining refurbishment?
- 04Have care plans been updated to record each person's communication methods, preferences, dietary needs and risks?
- 05How are medicine instructions, including patch rotation and variable doses, now recorded and checked?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care, and it was the first inspection under the current provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 November 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.
Every inspection of Fir Trees
4 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 August 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 Tameside
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. 90 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.