Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Firbank House

Requires improvementpublished 11 September 2024, 2 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, March 2023

Firbank House is Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and improved management, but some concerns about the environment and care planning remained.

This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 9 and 16 February 2023. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They checked records, medicines, staffing, safety systems, infection control and how the home was managed.

The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. People said they felt safe, risks were managed, medicines were generally handled safely, and staff were safely recruited. The home was clean and infection control arrangements were in place.

Inspectors found that the home had improved since the previous inspection. Earlier breaches about risk management, medicines and management oversight had been addressed. Some parts of the décor still needed improvement, and some relatives raised concerns about the environment and involvement in care planning.

This inspection only looked at Safe and Well-led. The other three question ratings were not reassessed and were carried forward from the previous inspection.

What inspectors praised
  • Risks managed

    Individual risks were recorded and managed safely. Staff understood people's specific needs, including dietary requirements linked to choking risks.

    “Individual risks were managed safely, and staff were aware of people's specific care needs.” from the report
  • People felt safe

    People said they felt safe in the home and that staff responded to call bells and requests for support.

    “People told us they felt safe living at the home.” from the report
  • Safe recruitment

    The home completed the required recruitment checks before staff started work.

    “There were safe systems of staff recruitment in place. All required checks had been undertaken prior to people commencing employment.” from the report
  • Management oversight

    The management team used audits and incident information to monitor quality and take follow-up action.

    “Effective quality assurance systems were in place. The quality and safety of the service was well monitored through regular auditing and follow up actions had been taken appropriately.” from the report
  • Activities developing

    An activities coordinator was developing activities around people's interests. This had already led to a library and reading sessions being organised.

    “This information was being used to develop activities based on people's interests and hobbies.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Décor still needed work

    minor

    The home was clean, but some areas of the décor needed improvement. Work was ongoing as part of the provider's improvement plan.

    “The home was clean throughout although some parts of the décor required some improvement.” from the report
  • Care planning involvement

    needs fixing

    Some concerns were raised about relatives not being involved enough in care planning. The provider said relatives had since been given access to electronic care planning systems where appropriate.

    “However, concerns were raised about the environment and lack of involvement in the care planning process.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What work has been completed, or is still planned, to improve the parts of the décor identified in the report?
  2. 02How will relatives be involved in care planning, and how can they access the electronic care planning system?
  3. 03How do you check that 'as required' medicines protocols remain detailed and up to date?
  4. 04How are incident and audit findings being used to make sure the improvements from the previous inspection continue?
  5. 05What activities are now available based on each person's interests and life story?

This was an unannounced follow-up inspection of Safe and Well-led; the Effective, Caring and Responsive ratings were not inspected and were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 March 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2023

Firbank House is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with medicines, care records, cleanliness and management checks.

This was an unannounced inspection on 25 and 26 October 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.

The home was not always safe. Care plans and risk assessments were sometimes inaccurate or out of date. Medicines were not always stored, recorded or administered safely. Some areas were unclean, and infection control procedures were not always followed.

The home was also not always well-led. Audits did not consistently find or fix problems with care records, medicines, cleanliness and the building. The home had improvements under a new manager, but inspectors were not assured that these improvements had been embedded and sustained.

The overall rating remains Requires Improvement. This is the fourth consecutive rated inspection with this rating. The inspection rated only Safe and Well-led. The other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection.

What inspectors praised
  • Safe recruitment

    The home completed checks before staff were employed, including DBS checks and references from previous employers.

    “The service had safe employment checks in place to ensure suitable staff were employed to care for people at the service.” from the report
  • Safeguarding

    Staff understood how to report safeguarding concerns. Systems were in place to monitor allegations and report them to the local authority.

    “Staff told us they would report any safeguarding concerns to management and were confident they would be acted upon.” from the report
  • Action during inspection

    The management team responded to inspectors' feedback and said they corrected people's risk management plans during the inspection.

    “The registered manager was responsive to our concerns raised on inspection and told us they would take action to remedy any shortfalls.” from the report
  • People felt safe

    People and relatives told inspectors that people felt safe and that staff were helpful, patient and caring.

    “People told us they felt safe at Firbank House.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Medicines

    serious

    Medicines were not always stored, disposed of or recorded safely. Inspectors found errors in stock records and missing information about medicine timings and opening dates.

    “Medicines were not always stored and disposed of safely; the medicines room was above recommended temperatures and one medicines trolley was not secured to the wall.” from the report
  • Risk information

    serious

    Some care records gave conflicting or missing information about people's food and drink needs. This created a risk that people could receive food or fluids that were unsafe for them.

    “This meant there was a risk people could receive food and drink that was not safe for them.” from the report
  • Cleanliness and infection control

    serious

    Some bedrooms and shared areas were not clean. Staff did not always use protective aprons correctly, and soiled laundry and waste were not always managed properly.

    “Some areas of the home were not clean. These included the main kitchen, sluice room, bathrooms and corridors.” from the report
  • Weak management checks

    serious

    Audits did not consistently identify or fix problems with records, medicines, infection control and the environment. This meant the provider did not have full oversight of the home.

    “The provider had not always ensured full oversight of the operations of the home, leading to the concerns identified in this inspection.” from the report
  • Building condition

    needs fixing

    Some flooring was bubbled or torn and created a trip hazard. Inspectors also found areas needing refurbishment and a fire service notice of deficiencies relating to fire doors.

    “Vinyl flooring in some communal corridors was bubbled and torn and created a trip hazard for people, paintwork and décor required renewal.” from the report
  • Staff training

    needs fixing

    New staff did not always complete all mandatory training before providing care and support. The manager said they did not work alone until training was complete.

    “We found that new staff did not complete all of their mandatory training prior to providing care and support to people.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What has been done to make sure each person's food and fluid guidance is accurate and consistent across all records?
  2. 02How are medicines now stored, timed, recorded and audited, including medicines needing a set gap between doses?
  3. 03What cleaning and infection control changes have been made, particularly in bedrooms, bathrooms, the kitchen, corridors and laundry?
  4. 04What repairs have been completed to the damaged flooring, décor and fire doors?
  5. 05How do you check that new staff complete mandatory training before providing care?

This was an unannounced inspection focused on Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Firbank House

8 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Firbank House →

  2. February 2023Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Firbank House →

  3. October 2021Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. November 2020Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. October 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. September 2018Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. April 2017Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. January 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. October 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. August 2015

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. October 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. September 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  13. November 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  14. September 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  15. July 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  16. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 January 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

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”
Marion L., about Primrose N.
See live-in carers near TamesideProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.