CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Littleborough Home for the Elderly
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective safeguarding, suitable risk assessments, enough staff and safe recruitment. Medicines were managed safely, but records for fluid thickeners needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had assessments, trained staff, regular supervision, a balanced diet and access to healthcare. Staff followed the Mental Capacity Act and supported people to make choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Staff respected privacy and dignity, knew people well and encouraged independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and person-centred. Comments about activities were mixed, and the home planned to recruit an activities coordinator and rebuild links with the local community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective management, audits and checks. The manager and staff worked with health services and other organisations to improve care.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Littleborough Home for the Elderly was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with some improvements still needed to the environment, activities and fluid-thickener records.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 3 January 2024. They spoke with 11 people living at the home, 5 relatives and staff. They observed a meal, looked around the building and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
People were supported by caring staff who respected their privacy, dignity and choices. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable training, good support with food and healthcare, and systems to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Some toilets needed redecoration, comments about activities were mixed, and records for fluid thickeners needed improvement. The home gave assurances that the records were corrected and provided a refurbishment plan.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to support people appropriately. Recruitment checks, including references and DBS checks, had been completed.
“Staff were recruited safely and there were sufficient staff to support people appropriately.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, respected privacy and dignity, and encouraged people to remain independent.
“Staff took steps to promote people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Good support with health
People received help with food, weight monitoring and access to health and social care services when needed.
“People had access to a range of health and social care services and appropriate referrals had been made when required.” from the report
Strong management
The management team used audits, checks and staff meetings to monitor quality and safety.
“Regular audits and checks were carried out by the management team.” from the report
Condition of some areas
needs fixingThe downstairs and upstairs toilets needed redecoration, with rusty pipework visible. Some dining room chairs were stained, although the provider supplied a refurbishment plan.
“In particular, redecoration was needed to both the downstairs and upstairs toilets, where rusty pipework was visible.” from the report
Activities were limited
minorPeople gave mixed comments about activities. One person said activities did not happen often, while the home was planning to recruit a dedicated activities coordinator.
“We received mixed comments about the provision of activities.” from the report
- 01What refurbishment has been completed in the upstairs and downstairs toilets, and what work remains?
- 02Has a dedicated activities coordinator been recruited, and what activities are now available each week?
- 03How are fluid thickeners recorded, checked and linked to the care plans of people who need them?
- 04How will you make sure there are enough activities for people who do not want to spend much of the day watching television?
- 05How often are medicines and care records audited, and can families be told about any problems found?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at all five key questions and included the home environment, care, medicines, staffing, records and infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 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, April 2021
Targeted inspection found good COVID-19 infection controls, but the service was not rated.
Inspectors visited on 17 March 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection looking at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
They found good arrangements for PPE, testing, cleaning, visitor screening, isolation and social distancing. People and their relatives were supported to keep in touch through window visits, video calls and telephone calls.
The home was inspected but not rated. The report gives a Safe rating of “Inspected but not rated” and does not give ratings for the other four areas.
PPE and staff practice
There was enough PPE for staff and visitors. Staff had been trained and inspectors saw them using it correctly.
“There was a good supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) for staff and any visitors to use.” from the report
Contact with relatives
The home offered window visits, video calls and telephone calls. It had also built a visiting POD and was considering a safe indoor visiting room.
“People living in the home and their next of kin were supported to maintain contact through a range of methods including pre-booked 'window' visits, video calls and the telephone.” from the report
Cleaning and testing
The home had daily cleaning schedules, extra cleaning of frequently touched areas, and regular COVID-19 testing for residents and staff.
“Daily cleaning schedules were implemented and these were enhanced with additional touch point cleaning.” from the report
Managing infection risks
People who tested positive were supported to isolate where possible. Those unable to isolate were closely monitored to reduce contact with others.
“People who tested positive for COVID-19 were supported to self-isolate.” from the report
Further development needed
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not explain what specific changes were needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How are visitors screened and supported to use PPE?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested for infections, and how are positive results managed?
- 04How can relatives visit now, and is the visiting POD or indoor visiting room still being used?
- 05What changes did the home make after being signposted to resources to develop its approach?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not rate the home's overall quality or the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 April 2021 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 Littleborough Home for the Elderly
4 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2024Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Littleborough Home for the Elderly →
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Littleborough Home for the Elderly →
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 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 Rochdale
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. 92 can care for a couple. 11 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.