CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Middleton Hall Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control. They found effective use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning, visiting arrangements 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, January 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and measures to manage COVID-19 pressures.
Inspectors visited on 6 January 2022 with one day's notice. This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, including the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
They found ample personal protective equipment, regular testing, required protective equipment for staff and visitors, and support for visits in line with guidance. The home was clean, with cleaning schedules and regular cleaning of frequently touched areas.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not provide an overall rating or a full assessment of all areas of care.
Clean environment
The home was clean and hygienic. Frequently touched areas were cleaned regularly during the day.
“The home was very clean and hygienic. Cleaning schedules were in place and frequently touched areas were cleaned regularly throughout the day to reduce the risk of infection.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had training in using protective equipment, and inspectors saw staff wearing it as required. Stocks were described as ample.
“Staff had received training in the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). There were ample stocks of PPE and we observed staff wearing PPE as required.” from the report
Testing and visits
Staff, visitors and people living in the home were tested regularly. Visits were being supported in line with current guidance.
“Staff and visitors were required to undertake COVID-19 testing and wear PPE in line with current Government guidance.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had policies, risk assessments and monitoring arrangements to help prevent or manage infection outbreaks.
“The system in place ensured any infection outbreaks could be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are staff and visitors currently tested, and when is protective equipment required?
- 02How often are frequently touched areas cleaned, and how is this recorded?
- 03What arrangements are in place now to manage staff shortages linked to COVID-19?
- 04How does the home currently support visits and manage infection risks during visits?
- 05When were the other areas of care, which were not covered by this targeted inspection, last assessed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 January 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.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with more activities and some end-of-life plans still needed.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 4 December 2018. One CQC inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff and a visiting health professional. They observed care and reviewed care plans, staff files, training records, safety records, audits and meeting minutes.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, clean surroundings and accurate care records. Staff were described as kind, patient and friendly, and people's privacy and dignity were respected.
At the previous inspection, the home had breached Regulation 17 because some food and fluid charts were inaccurate. This inspection found the records were accurate and regular audits were in place, so the breach had been addressed. Inspectors noted that some people wanted more activities and that not all advance care plans had been completed.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience and friendliness. People's privacy and dignity were respected during personal care.
“Throughout the inspection day we observed staff to be kind, patient and friendly with people who used the service.” from the report
Safe medicines
The home had robust medicines procedures, with checks, secure storage and staff competency testing. No medicines errors had been reported in the previous 12 months.
“We looked at the medicine systems at the service, which were robust and there had been no medicines errors in the last 12 months.” from the report
Improved records
The inaccurate food and fluid charts found at the previous inspection had been corrected. Regular audits were being used to keep records accurate.
“At this inspection we found the provider had addressed this because documentation was an accurate record of care provided and regular audits ensured continued accuracy with regard to this documentation.” from the report
Person-centred care
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, routines and personal choices. Reviews involved people and relatives where relevant.
“Care files that we looked at were person-centred and included people's likes and dislikes.” from the report
Good oversight
The home used regular checks covering care, medicines, safety, cleaning, equipment and the environment. These records were up to date.
“There were a number of audits and checks to help ensure standards were maintained.” from the report
Not enough activities for some people
minorSome people told inspectors they wanted more to do, including more games. The manager said the home was looking at providing more activities and meaningful one-to-one interaction.
“One person told us, "There is not enough to do. There used to be games in the afternoon, I would like more games it keeps your mind going".” from the report
Incomplete end-of-life plans
needs fixingAdvance care plans recording people's wishes near the end of life were not all complete. The manager agreed to review them.
“However, these were not all completed. The registered manager agreed to review these to ensure people's wishes were documented.” from the report
- 01What extra activities have been added since some people said there was not enough to do?
- 02How do you make sure activities match each person's interests and offer meaningful one-to-one time?
- 03Have all residents' advance care plans now been completed and reviewed with them or their representatives?
- 04How are food and fluid records checked now, following the inaccurate charts found at the previous inspection?
- 05How will you keep families informed about changes in a person's care plan or end-of-life wishes?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service covering all five key questions, with all five ratings given as Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 December 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 Middleton Hall Care Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 January 2016.
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.