CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hope Manor Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, staff responded quickly and medicines were given as prescribed. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe recruitment and safety checks, although some medication choice records initially lacked signatures and this was corrected.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and supervision, and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare. Inspectors found that the home followed the Mental Capacity Act and used suitable aids and adaptations.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed warm, kind and respectful relationships. People were involved in decisions, supported to keep their independence and given privacy.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were person-centred and reviewed regularly. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships, complaints and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had consistent management, a stable staff team and systems to monitor care quality. Inspectors noted that opportunities for trips out were limited because there was no additional activities budget.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Hope Manor Residential Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with only minor issues addressed during the inspection.
Inspectors visited on 19 and 20 December 2023. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with 9 people, 3 relatives and 7 staff. They reviewed medicines, 4 care plans, recruitment, safety and management systems, and contacted health professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives said staff were kind, respectful and caring. People said they felt safe, received their medicines correctly and got help quickly when needed.
Inspectors found thorough care plans, suitable staff training, good infection control and effective links with health professionals. People were supported with food, drink, activities, communication, independence and end of life care.
Inspectors found some missing signatures in medication choice records, some clutter caused by limited storage and limited trips outside the home. The medication records and clutter were dealt with during the inspection. The overall Good rating means the service was consistently managed and people received good care and support.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed warm interactions and found that people were treated with dignity and respect.
“People and their relatives told us staff were kind, caring and respectful.” from the report
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and could get help quickly. Staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns, and recruitment checks were in place.
“All the people we spoke with told us they felt safe living at Hope Manor Residential Home.” from the report
Good health support
The home worked with healthcare professionals and responded quickly when people became unwell. People were supported to maintain their health and mobility.
“The service worked collaboratively with external health professionals to help improve people's lives.” from the report
Personalised care and independence
Care plans included people's preferences and communication needs. Staff supported people to make choices and remain independent where this was safe.
“Care plans were thorough, person-centred and contained relevant information in relation to generic and individual risks.” from the report
Positive management
Inspectors found a stable staff team, regular communication and audits to monitor the quality of care.
“Management systems were robust and provided clear monitoring and oversight of the service.” from the report
Medication records
needs fixingSome medication choice records were missing signatures. The issue was brought to the manager's attention and corrected during the inspection.
“We noted missing signatures on some medication choice records within care plans.” from the report
Limited storage and clutter
minorInspectors found some clutter because storage space was limited. It did not affect safety and was moved during the inspection.
“We identified some clutter around the home due to limited storage areas.” from the report
Few trips outside the home
minorThere was no additional budget for activities and opportunities away from the home. Inspectors said trips out were limited.
“However, there was no additional budget to fund activities and opportunities for people to experience away from the home, for example, trips out were limited.” from the report
- 01How are medication choice records checked now that missing signatures were found?
- 02What activities are available for people who want to go out of the home?
- 03How do you manage storage and prevent clutter in bedrooms and communal areas?
- 04How often are care plans reviewed with residents and their families?
- 05How do staff support each person's communication needs and independence?
This was a full inspection covering all five key questions, with visits on 19 and 20 December 2023 and additional evidence reviewed remotely. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 February 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 controls, but asked for several risk assessments and training updates.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 21 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak, and at whether staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors found good arrangements for testing, personal protective equipment, social distancing, admissions, cleaning, ventilation and managing possible infections. There were enough staff, with agency staff used when regular staff were unavailable.
The home was closed to most visitors because of the outbreak, apart from essential care givers and people visiting those receiving end-of-life care. Inspectors asked for more prominent infection control signs, a risk assessment for a person who sometimes refused testing, updated training and a risk assessment for one staff member.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five questions.
Personal protective equipment
There was enough PPE, and staff were seen wearing it throughout the inspection.
“Enough PPE was available and we saw staff wore it at all times during our visit.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
The home had procedures covering COVID-19, with regular infection control checks.
“An appropriate infection control procedure was in place, with specific reference to Covid-19 and regular infection control audits were undertaken to ensure standards were maintained.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors saw a clean and tidy home, with domestic staff working during the day.
“We observed the home to be clean and tidy, with domestic staff carrying out their duties throughout the day.” from the report
Staffing arrangements
Inspectors found enough staff to care for people safely. Agency staff were used when regular staff were unavailable.
“There were enough staff to care for people safely, with staff receiving additional infection control training during the pandemic” from the report
Risk assessment for refused testing
needs fixingOne person sometimes refused testing. Inspectors asked the registered manager to record how this risk was being managed.
“One person sometimes refused to complete a test and we asked the registered manager to implement a risk assessment to show how this was being managed.” from the report
Training not all up to date
needs fixingThe training records showed that some infection control training needed updating.
“the training matrix indicated not all IPC training was up to date.” from the report
Risk assessment for a staff member
needs fixingInspectors asked for a risk assessment for one staff member who might have been at higher risk of catching COVID-19.
“we asked the registered manager to implement a risk assessment for one member of staff who could potentially be at higher risk of contracting COVID-19.” from the report
More prominent infection control signs
minorThe home had infection control information, but inspectors asked for clearer and more prominent signs in reception.
“we spoke with the registered manager to ensure there was more prominent signage in the area regarding infection prevention control (IPC) practices.” from the report
- 01Have you completed the risk assessment for the person who sometimes refused routine testing, and what does it now say?
- 02Has all infection prevention and control training been brought up to date?
- 03Have you completed the risk assessment for the staff member who may have been at higher risk of contracting COVID-19?
- 04What clearer infection prevention and control signs are now displayed in reception?
- 05What are the current visiting arrangements following the COVID-19 outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures during a COVID-19 outbreak; it did not rate the other areas of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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 Hope Manor Residential Home
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- February 2024Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- November 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 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 Salford
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”
“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.