CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mather Fold House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were being used. This included safe admissions, testing, protective equipment, hygiene, social distancing and plans for managing outbreaks.
- 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, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control measures were in place during the Covid-19 pandemic.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 11 November 2020. It was carried out because the CQC had received information of concern about infection control and prevention.
The inspection focused only on infection prevention and control during the pandemic. Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, shielding, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleanliness and possible outbreaks.
The home had made tailored plans to help people understand testing and protective equipment. It also planned activities inside the home and reviewed how it would manage if staff numbers suddenly fell.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or a standard rating for all five areas of care.
Personalised pandemic support
The home used easy-read information and individual risk assessments to help people understand Covid-19 testing and protective equipment. It also planned support for people who found testing or masks difficult.
“The provider and management team had developed highly person-centred strategies to support people living in the home to understand and respond safely to the risks posed by the pandemic.” from the report
Infection control assurance
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing the main infection risks, including visitors, admissions, testing, protective equipment, hygiene and possible outbreaks.
“We were assured the provider managed infection prevention and control to limit the impact of the Covid19 pandemic.” from the report
Activities during restrictions
Staff created activities inside the home for people who would normally go out frequently. These included exercise, films and takeaway evenings.
“The staff had developed a programme of activities based in the home to support people who would normally go out a lot.” from the report
Contingency planning
Managers had reviewed what to do if staff numbers fell suddenly and understood how to prioritise risks.
“The provider and management team had reviewed their contingency plans in the event of a reduction in staff at short notice.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently support people who find Covid-19 testing difficult or refuse a test?
- 02What arrangements are now used if someone finds staff wearing masks distressing?
- 03How do you currently manage visits, protective equipment, testing and possible infection outbreaks?
- 04What activities are available for people who cannot go out as often as usual?
- 05What is your current plan if staff numbers suddenly fall?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; it was not a full inspection of all five care areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 November 2020 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 2020
Mather Fold House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with earlier medicines concerns resolved.
This was an unannounced inspection on 05 and 07 February 2020. One inspector spoke with people, staff, relatives and the manager. They reviewed care and medicines records, staff training, rotas, audits and the building.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm, medicines were managed safely, and staff had the training and support they needed.
Care was described as kind, respectful and highly personalised. The home supported communication, health needs, activities and relationships. Relatives reported improvements in people's quality of life.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in February 2019, with a breach about medicines. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made and the home was no longer in breach.
Medicines safety improved
The home had addressed the medicines problems found at the previous inspection. Staff training, competency checks and medicines records were in place.
“The provider had robust systems in place which helped ensure people's medicines were stored and administered safely.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's individual needs, preferences and goals in detail. Relatives reported improvements in people's happiness and quality of life.
“The provider ensured people received highly personalised care which reflected their needs and preferences.” from the report
Communication support
The home used pictures, easy-read information and detailed communication guides to help people understand what was happening and express their views.
“The provider had met this standard. Information had been provided in a variety of formats including easy read versions and pictures.” from the report
Leadership and checks
The management team used regular audits and checks to monitor care and records. Staff said management was approachable and helped them develop their skills and confidence.
“The provider had robust governance systems in place which helped the management team ensure the quality of care and support was maintained.” from the report
Gaps in food records
needs fixingInspectors found some missing entries in records of food eaten. This was addressed during the inspection.
“Records of food eaten had been completed in daily records. We noted there were some gaps on some days.” from the report
Wear and tear
minorThe home was generally well maintained, but inspectors saw some wear and tear. Refurbishment was under way.
“The home was well maintained but showing some signs of wear and tear. There was a programme of refurbishment in progress.” from the report
Family updates
minorMost relatives said they were kept in touch with, but one person wanted more regular updates.
“However, one person would have preferred more regular updates.” from the report
- 01How do you check that records of food and drink are complete every day?
- 02What refurbishment work is still planned to address the wear and tear identified by inspectors?
- 03How will you agree with our family how often we receive updates?
- 04How are medicines checked now, including staff competency and records for as-required medicines?
- 05How will you make sure my relative's communication needs, preferences and goals are reflected in their care plan?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering the home, care and all five CQC key questions; the previous Requires Improvement ratings were reassessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 2020 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 Mather Fold House
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 November 2015.
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.