CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oldfield Bank Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that medicines, safeguarding, risk assessments, recruitment and infection control were managed safely. Communal areas were occasionally left unsupervised for a few minutes, but action was taken during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found stronger audits, accurate care plans, an open culture and approachable management. Some changes were made to improve monitoring of oral care and fluid charts.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and stronger management, with a few monitoring and supervision issues.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 30 May and 1 June 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, staffing levels were safe and infection control arrangements were suitable.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement and found breaches of regulations. The provider had completed an action plan, and inspectors found the home was no longer in breach. Communal areas were sometimes left without staff for a few minutes, and some monitoring records needed improving.
Safe medicines
Medicines were prescribed, given, recorded and stored safely. Staff who gave medicines had training and regular competency checks.
“Staff who administered medicines had been trained to do so and the registered manager completed regular competency checks to ensure staff administering medication did so safely.” from the report
Positive staff culture
People, relatives and staff described friendly and respectful relationships. Staff were experienced, felt supported and knew people's needs well.
“The interactions between staff and residents were friendly, respectful, and pleasant.” from the report
Improved management
The home had embedded its electronic care plan system and introduced regular audits covering areas such as care plans, accidents, infection control, complaints and medicines.
“The home had introduced a new electronic care plan system prior to the last inspection. This was now fully embedded within the home.” from the report
Good communication
Relatives said they were kept informed and felt able to raise concerns. Staff also said they were listened to and supported.
“The communication is fantastic. The slightest things we are updated. I can ring at any time” from the report
Brief gaps in supervision
minorCommunal areas were sometimes left without staff for a few minutes. Inspectors found no evidence that anyone had been harmed, and staff deployment was changed during the inspection.
“However, as at our last inspection, communal areas were occasionally left unsupervised for short periods of a few minutes.” from the report
Monitoring records needed improvement
minorOral care and fluid charts did not give managers enough oversight. The care was taking place, but the care plan design was changed during the inspection.
“Changes were made during the inspection to ensure the monitoring of both oral care and fluid charts were more effective in future.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure communal areas are supervised at all times?
- 02How are oral care tasks recorded and checked now?
- 03How do you monitor fluid intake and respond if records show a concern?
- 04What regular checks are carried out on medicines, care plans and accidents?
- 05Which ratings were carried over from the previous inspection rather than assessed during this visit?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 July 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, November 2019
Oldfield Bank Residential Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but unsafe medicines management and weak quality checks.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 1 and 2 October 2019. They spoke with people living at the home, a relative, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, staff records, audits and medicines records.
People generally said they felt safe and well cared for. Staff were kind, patient and knew people well. Care plans were detailed and personalised. The home was clean, activities had improved and people were supported with health needs.
The main problems were medicines not always being given or recorded correctly, and safety checks failing to find these issues. Some staff were not following safety measures around a kitchenette with a hot kettle. The home was also still rated Requires Improvement for leadership because its checks did not reliably identify risks. This was the second consecutive Requires Improvement rating.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive, patient and respectful interactions. Staff recognised when people were anxious or unwell and offered reassurance.
“Staff interactions with people using the service were positive, patient and respectful.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records described people's routines, preferences and support needs in detail. People said they were involved in planning their care.
“People's care records were person centred and accurately described what support they needed from staff.” from the report
Health support
Staff knew people well and made referrals to health professionals when needed. Professionals gave positive feedback about communication and care.
“They know the patients and the patients know the staff. Communication is good.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home visibly clean and tidy. The kitchen and food management systems had received the highest environmental health rating.
“The service had been awarded a five 'very good' rating, which is the best rating achievable.” from the report
Kitchenette safety measures were not followed
seriousThe kitchenette door was repeatedly unsecured and a kettle contained hot water, despite instructions to empty and store it safely.
“The kettle in this room was also found to contain hot water, despite a sign instructing staff to empty it and store it in the cupboard when not in use.” from the report
Quality checks missed important problems
seriousThe home's audits did not identify medicines shortfalls or an inaccurate care plan. This meant there was a risk that people could receive incorrect care.
“The provider did not have robust process in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service provided.” from the report
Care records were affected by a new system
needs fixingSome records were incomplete or inaccurate while staff were learning the new electronic system. One care plan contained information copied from a standard template that might not have applied to the person.
“This meant we were not able to tell which information in the care plan was relevant to them.” from the report
Limited dementia-friendly design
needs fixingThere were few environmental features to help people living with dementia, such as signs to identify toilets and bedrooms.
“There were limited changes to the environment to make it dementia friendly.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines storage, administration records and daily medicines audits since the inspection?
- 02How do you now make sure medicines are given as prescribed and that any missed doses are followed up?
- 03How do you ensure the kitchenette remains secured and the kettle is emptied and stored safely?
- 04What checks are now in place to prevent inaccurate or incomplete electronic care records?
- 05What improvements have been made to help people living with dementia find their bedrooms, toilets and other areas?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care and premises, covering all five CQC questions; the report says the inspection was planned because of the previous rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 November 2019 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 Oldfield Bank Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Oldfield Bank Residential Care Home →
- November 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Oldfield Bank Residential Care Home →
- October 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 July 2017.
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 Trafford
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. 91 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.