CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Holme Manor Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection control, testing, protective equipment and visiting arrangements were being managed safely. They asked the home to improve waste disposal bins and ensure cleaning schedules covered high-touch areas often enough.
- 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found safe infection control during a COVID-19 outbreak, with minor improvements needed to bins and cleaning schedules.
The inspection took place on 2 February 2022 and was announced one day beforehand. It was a targeted visit focusing on infection prevention and control, COVID-19-related staffing pressures and whether these affected care.
Inspectors found safe processes for testing and responding to positive COVID-19 results. They were assured that staff used protective equipment correctly, visiting was managed safely and the home had enough staff to maintain support during possible shortages.
The home was clean and free from unpleasant smells. Inspectors discussed replacing swing bins with pedal-operated bins and making sure high-touch areas were cleaned as often as needed. The manager agreed to address these points.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not provide a full overall judgement of the home or a full set of ratings across the five areas of care.
COVID-19 testing and response
The home had clear records showing that it followed safe processes and acted promptly when positive COVID-19 tests occurred.
“Clear records showed safe processes were followed in response to any positive COVID tests, in line with government guidance.” from the report
Protective equipment
There were enough supplies of protective equipment, and staff and managers were observed using it correctly.
“There were enough stocks of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Staffing cover
The home had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures and enough staff to maintain continuity of support if shortages occurred.
“There were enough staff to provide continuity of support should there be a staff shortage.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and free from unpleasant smells, with cleaning schedules in place.
“The home was clean and odour free.” from the report
Safe visiting arrangements
Visitor checks, testing, protective equipment and hand sanitiser were available. During the outbreak, indoor visits were limited except for essential care givers and exceptional circumstances.
“Visitor assessments were carried out to consider temperature checks, current health needs, lateral flow test results and COVID-19 symptoms and PPE and sanitisers were readily available.” from the report
Bins and high-touch cleaning
minorInspectors asked the home to replace swing bins with pedal-operated bins and make sure high-touch areas were cleaned as often as needed. The manager agreed to address this.
“We discussed replacing swing bins with pedal operated bins to ensure safer disposal of waste and ensuring cleaning schedules reflected the frequency of cleaning high touch areas.” from the report
- 01Have the swing bins been replaced with pedal-operated bins, and how is PPE waste now disposed of?
- 02How often are high-touch areas cleaned, and how do you check that this is happening?
- 03What testing arrangements are currently in place for residents and staff?
- 04What are the current visiting arrangements, including any checks, testing and protective equipment?
- 05How would you maintain staffing levels if there were COVID-19-related staff shortages?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was inspected but not rated and did not provide a full assessment of the other care areas. 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.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some improvements needed in medicines, recruitment checks and mealtimes.
CQC visited on 6, 7 and 12 February 2019. The first day was unannounced. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also looked at the building and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment files, complaints and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were treated kindly. Inspectors found enough staff, personalised care plans, support with health needs, varied activities and flexible visiting.
Some improvements were identified. Recruitment files did not always include full employment histories and gaps had not been checked. Medicines guidance and storage needed attention. Inspectors also found that some people could have been supported better at mealtimes and recommended that the dining experience be monitored.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed staff supporting people in a sensitive and friendly way.
“We observed sensitive and respectful interactions between people using the service and staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, choices, hopes and interests. Records were reviewed and updated when people's needs changed.
“Each person had a care plan which was designed to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People had group and one-to-one activities, including community opportunities. Relatives and friends were welcome and visiting times were flexible.
“People spoken with were satisfied with the wide range of activities and opportunities for stimulation and engagement.” from the report
Good healthcare support
People's health was monitored and the home involved healthcare professionals when needed. Inspectors found that changes in health and wellbeing were responded to.
“Records and discussion showed people had been assisted to receive care and attention from healthcare professionals.” from the report
Positive safety arrangements
People said they felt safe. The home had safeguarding training, risk assessments, premises checks and infection-control arrangements.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people to stay safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Recruitment checks
needs fixingMost recruitment checks had been completed, but full employment histories and gaps had not always been checked. The home manager took action during the inspection to address this.
“The process had not included requesting full employment histories and checking any gaps. This meant recruitment checks were not robust.” from the report
Medicines guidance and storage
needs fixingSome instructions for variable-dose and when-required medicines lacked detail. Inspectors also asked the provider to review medicines storage arrangements.
“Some guidance on 'variable dose' and 'when required' medicines was lacking in detail.” from the report
Mealtime support
needs fixingAlthough people were positive about the food, inspectors saw occasions when support could have better promoted dignity, independence and choice. They recommended monitoring the dining experience.
“We recommend people's dining experience be monitored in line with recognised good practice and any necessary action taken to make improvements.” from the report
Building improvements
minorSome facilities needed review, including a bathing facility and wheelchair storage. The home did not yet have a process for ongoing refurbishment and adjustments.
“We found some areas would benefit from review, including a bathing facility and wheelchair storage.” from the report
Management arrangements
needs fixingThe home manager was responsible for running the home day to day but was required to apply for CQC registration. Inspectors said they would continue to monitor progress.
“During the inspection, the registered manager confirmed the home manager was to apply for registration with CQC.” from the report
- 01Have full employment histories and gaps been checked for every current and new staff member since the inspection?
- 02How are variable-dose and when-required medicines now explained and recorded?
- 03How are medicines stored safely, and when was the storage arrangement last reviewed?
- 04What changes have been made to support people's dignity, independence and choice during meals?
- 05Has the home manager applied for and obtained CQC registration?
This was a planned inspection of the premises and care provided, covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good in July 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 March 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 Holme Manor Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 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.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.