CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Medlock Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed. This included safe admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning, social distancing and plans for preventing or 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 the home had good infection prevention and control measures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 30 October 2020. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control because the home had been identified as a designated care setting for people discharged from hospital with a positive Covid-19 status.
Inspectors found good practice in the laundry system, clear signs and guidance, and support from different professionals to help people recover and return home safely. They were assured that the home was following good infection prevention and control guidance.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all areas of care, so the report does not give an overall quality rating.
Safe laundry arrangements
The laundry process reduced the risk of infection spreading. It used double bags, containers with lids and a direct route that avoided other areas.
“The laundry system was very safe, including the use of double bagging, lidded containers and direct access to the laundry without crossing other areas.” from the report
Clear information
Signs around the home gave clear instructions and guidance.
“Signage throughout the home was clearly visible, with concise instructions and guidance.” from the report
Support to return home
People were supported by different professionals to regain their usual abilities and return home when it was safe.
“People were supported with multi-disciplinary teams to reach their baseline as soon as possible and return home when safe to do so.” from the report
Infection control assurance
Inspectors were assured that the home was following good infection prevention and control guidance for its role as a designated care setting.
“We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines as a designated care setting.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently prevented from catching or spreading infections?
- 02How are people admitted safely, and what testing is carried out for new residents and staff?
- 03How is protective equipment used and checked in the home?
- 04What happens if there is an infection outbreak, and how would families be informed?
- 05How does the home support people to regain their usual abilities and return home safely?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 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, May 2018
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with improvements after earlier concerns.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 10 April 2018. Inspectors spoke with people using the home, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicine records, staff records and management records.
The home provided short-stay accommodation and enablement support for up to 32 people. There were 26 people using it on the inspection day. Inspectors found people felt safe, staff were kind, care plans were useful, medicines were managed safely and people were supported to stay independent.
The inspection was brought forward because of concerns about a specific incident. That incident was still being investigated, so inspectors did not examine what happened. They found the home had improved its management of falls, medicines and diabetes risks. The home was rated Good overall and Good in each of the five areas.
Medicine safety
Inspectors found accurate medicine records and a two-person checking system during the medicine round. Staff were trained and their competence was checked regularly.
“We looked at nine medicines administration records (MARs) and found they had been completed accurately.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and professionals described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff protecting people's dignity and building positive relationships.
“We observed that staff had formed meaningful relationships with people.” from the report
Support for independence
Care plans prompted staff to support people to do what they could for themselves. People were helped to regain skills and prepare to return home.
“Where possible people were encouraged to be independent.” from the report
Activities and communication
People could choose from activities such as baking, games, quizzes and arts and crafts. Care plans also explained how to support different communication needs.
“We saw that activities included; baking, board games, quizzes and arts and crafts.” from the report
Learning and improvement
The home had responded to earlier concerns by improving its approach to falls, medicines and diabetes. Managers used audits, incident reviews and an action plan to track improvements.
“We found that the service had learned from recent incidents and had responded appropriately to mitigate the risks of falls, medicines administration and improved the awareness of diabetes across the workforce.” from the report
Fire risk assessment update
minorThe fire risk assessment was being updated during the inspection. Ask what changes were made and whether the update has been completed.
“A qualified person was updating the fire risk assessment to ensure the service were meeting safety requirements.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after the recent medicines error, especially when medicines arrive with a new person?
- 02How are falls and near misses reviewed, and how quickly are risk assessments updated afterwards?
- 03Has the fire risk assessment update been completed, and were any further safety actions identified?
- 04How will diabetes care be managed for my relative, including blood tests and insulin if needed?
- 05What are the current visiting arrangements, and how will they fit around therapy and mealtimes?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of all five areas, but it did not examine the circumstances of the specific incident that prompted the inspection because that investigation was ongoing. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 May 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 Medlock Court
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 October 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 Oldham
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”
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.