CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Max Potential
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and staffing levels matched people's needs. Inspectors identified gaps in medicines temperature monitoring, electrical testing and employment history checks, but the provider addressed these issues during or after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments and personalised support plans. Staff were trained and checked as competent, and people were supported with food, health care and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, respect and humanity. People were supported to communicate, make decisions, develop skills and have privacy and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was personalised and adapted to people's communication needs, interests and choices. End-of-life wishes were not always recorded effectively, and CQC recommended improvements to this process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were visible and approachable, and staff understood their roles. Quality systems were generally effective, although the inspection found areas needing further development, including medicines management and end-of-life records.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Max Potential was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but some records and safety checks needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 6 and 7 December 2023, with inspection activity running from 6 to 8 December. They spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff. They observed care and communication, and checked support records, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
The home supports four people with learning disabilities and autistic people. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices. Staff understood people's communication needs, supported activities and helped people maintain their health and independence.
There were some shortfalls. Medicines storage temperatures were not being monitored, some electrical equipment had not been tested, and some employment history gaps had not been fully checked. The provider acted on these issues during or after the inspection. Records of people's end-of-life wishes were not always complete, so CQC made a recommendation.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published in January 2018.
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood people as individuals and respected their preferences, privacy and dignity. Relatives said people were involved in decisions about their lives.
“Staff treated people with real kindness, respect, and humanity.” from the report
Personalised communication
People had individual communication plans, and staff knew how to use each person's preferred way of communicating. This helped people express their views and needs.
“Staff had good awareness, skills and understanding of individual communication needs, they knew how to facilitate communication and when people were trying to tell them something.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff focused on what people could do and supported them to make choices, try new experiences and develop skills. People could personalise their rooms and take part in activities they wanted.
“Staff focused on people's strengths and promoted what they could do, so people had a fulfilling and meaningful everyday life.” from the report
Staffing and safeguarding
There were enough staff with the right skills to meet people's needs. Staff understood safeguarding and knew people well enough to recognise distress and provide support.
“The numbers and skills of staff matched the needs of people using the service.” from the report
End-of-life records
needs fixingPeople's end-of-life wishes were not always recorded effectively. The provider updated arrangements after the inspection, and CQC recommended reviewing the recording process.
“However, these decisions were not always effectively recorded.” from the report
Medicines storage temperatures
needs fixingThe temperature of medicine storage areas was not being monitored, so inspectors could not be sure medicines were always stored safely. The provider sent evidence after the inspection that this had been corrected.
“The temperature medicines were stored at were not always monitored.” from the report
Electrical safety checks
needs fixingNot all actions from the fire risk assessment had been completed. Electrical equipment had not all been tested, but arrangements were put in place during the inspection.
“For example, electrical items had not been PAT tested.” from the report
Recruitment records
minorSome gaps in staff employment history had not been fully reviewed. The manager provided evidence that this was corrected after the inspection.
“However, gaps employment history had not always been reviewed in full.” from the report
- 01How are medicine storage temperatures checked and recorded now?
- 02When was all electrical equipment last tested, and how are future tests tracked?
- 03How do you now record and review each person's end-of-life wishes?
- 04How do you check and record gaps in a new staff member's employment history?
- 05How are people and their relatives involved in reviewing support plans and daily choices?
This inspection looked at the home and care provided across all five CQC questions, with visits on 6 and 7 December and other inspection activity from 6 to 8 December 2023. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 December 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.
What inspectors found, January 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a fire risk assessment due to be updated.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 December 2017. One inspector spoke with the management team, two support staff and two of the four people using the home. They reviewed all four care files, staff records, training records, meeting notes and audits. They also contacted local professionals and agencies, who gave no negative comments.
The inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines systems, thorough staff training and complete health and safety records. Care plans were personal and regularly reviewed. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, take part in activities and maintain their cultural, religious and dietary preferences.
People said they liked living at the home and that staff were kind. The management was described as supportive and approachable. The fire risk assessment needed updating after building work, and minor concerns had not been recorded, although the managers agreed to record them in future.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report does not state that any regulations were breached or that enforcement action was taken.
Safeguarding and staffing
Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report concerns. Staffing levels and recruitment checks were also found to be suitable.
“The service had an up to date safeguarding policy, staff had attended safeguarding training and were able to explain what constituted a safeguarding concern” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans were written around each person's needs and wishes. They were available in easy read and pictorial formats, helping people understand and contribute to their care.
“Care plans were produced in easy read and pictorial format to make them accessible to each individual.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were encouraged to help with everyday tasks and make choices about food, clothing, activities and their personal space.
“People who used the service were encouraged to assist with tasks such as making drinks and meals.” from the report
Activities and community life
People took part in activities and outings, and were encouraged to access education. One person attended college and others enjoyed sports, shopping and family visits.
“There were outings and short holidays arranged by the service for those who wished to participate.” from the report
Staff support and oversight
Staff received regular training, supervision and appraisals. The home also carried out regular checks and audits, with records found to be complete and up to date.
“A number of regular audits and checks were carried out to help ensure the quality of the service delivery.” from the report
Fire risk assessment
needs fixingThe fire risk assessment had not yet been updated after renovations. The home had arranged for the fire service to review it in January 2018.
“The fire risk assessment at the premises needed to be updated following the work done on the building.” from the report
Recording minor concerns
minorMinor concerns were dealt with through conversations but were not recorded. The managers agreed to record these discussions in future.
“They did not record these conversations, but agreed they would do this in future to evidence their actions.” from the report
- 01Has the fire risk assessment been updated since the building renovations, and can we see the latest review?
- 02How are minor concerns from people using the home and their families recorded and followed up now?
- 03How will you make sure staffing levels remain suitable when staff are off sick or on leave?
- 04How are each person's cultural, religious, dietary and communication needs recorded and reviewed?
- 05How are people supported to choose activities, education and daily routines that suit their wishes?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with ratings given for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 2018 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 Max Potential
3 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 June 2013.
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 Bolton
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. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.