Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Polefield Nursing Home

Goodpublished 9 August 2023, 3 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines management and effective infection control. Equipment stored in corridors created a potential trip hazard, although no one had been harmed.
Effective?
Good
People were supported with food, drink, healthcare and legally appropriate decisions. Training was out of date and three care records contained errors, including two inaccurate speech and language assessments, but these were addressed during the inspection.
Caring?
Good
Caring was not assessed as part of this focused inspection. The report says people told inspectors staff were kind and caring.
Responsive?
Good
Responsive was not assessed as part of this focused inspection, so the report does not give a current rating for this question.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
Management checks were not always effective. Inspectors found problems with safeguarding follow-up, accident and incident oversight, notifications to CQC, staff training and the accuracy of care records.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, August 2023

Polefield Nursing Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but leadership and checks needed improvement.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 27 and 28 June 2023. Two inspectors spoke with 5 people and 9 staff. They reviewed 8 care records, medicines records, staff recruitment and supervision files, and management records.

The home was rated Good for Safe and Effective. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, safe recruitment and good infection control. People said they felt safe and that staff were kind and caring.

The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led, the same as at the previous inspection. Checks on accidents, incidents, safeguarding follow-up, staff training and care records were not always effective. The overall rating stayed Good because the inspection was focused and some ratings carried over from the previous inspection.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful care

    People and staff described a positive culture. Inspectors observed friendly, respectful and pleasant interactions.

    “People and staff reported a positive culture within the home and people told us staff were kind and caring.” from the report
  • Safe staffing

    Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.

    “There were enough staff to meet people's needs in a timely way.” from the report
  • Medicines managed safely

    Staff followed systems for prescribing, giving, recording and storing medicines. Staff who gave medicines had training and competency checks.

    “Medicines were managed safely. People were supported by staff who followed systems and processes to prescribe, administer, record and store medicines safely.” from the report
  • Good partnership working

    Staff worked with relevant health and social care professionals. Training had been completed to help staff recognise when someone's health was deteriorating.

    “The staff had collaborative working relationships with relevant health care professionals such as social workers and district nurses.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Management checks were not reliable enough

    serious

    Oversight of accidents and incidents needed to improve. Some actions were not completed promptly, and two incidents involving harm were not notified correctly to CQC until after the inspection.

    “Oversight of accidents and incidents had not been effective. Recent improvements had been made to documentation, but further improvements were needed” from the report
  • Safeguarding follow-up

    needs fixing

    Safeguarding concerns were reported, but follow-up was not always timely when outside agencies had not responded. Inspectors recommended reviewing current safeguarding guidance.

    “However, where outside agencies had not responded, this had not always been followed up in a timely manner.” from the report
  • Staff training was out of date

    needs fixing

    Some training was overdue at the inspection. The home had plans for this to be completed by August 2023.

    “At the time of the inspection training was out of date, but plans were in place for this to be completed by August 2023.” from the report
  • Care records contained errors

    needs fixing

    Three of eight care plans checked had recording errors. Two had inaccurate assessments for people at risk of choking, although these were corrected during the inspection and no harm had occurred.

    “Two contained inaccurate speech and language assessments for people at risk of choking. This was corrected during the inspection.” from the report
  • Limited equipment storage

    minor

    Hoists and other equipment were stored in corridors because storage space was limited. This created a potential trip hazard, although no one had been harmed.

    “Space available to store equipment was limited. We found equipment such as hoists were stored in corridors.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Has all staff training that was out of date at the inspection now been completed, and how is this checked?
  2. 02What changes have been made to ensure accidents and incidents are reviewed, followed up and notified to CQC correctly?
  3. 03How are safeguarding concerns followed up when outside agencies do not respond?
  4. 04What system is now being used to keep care plans accurate, especially for people at risk of choking?
  5. 05Where are hoists and other equipment stored now, and has the potential trip hazard been removed?

This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected, and the overall rating used some ratings from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 August 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2022

Polefield Nursing Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control and visiting arrangements were safe.

This was an announced, targeted inspection on 18 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, visiting arrangements and whether staffing pressures were affecting care.

Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks. This included the use of protective equipment, testing, social distancing, cleaning, safe admissions and infection outbreak arrangements.

The home was also facilitating visits in line with relevant guidance and meeting the requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals to be vaccinated. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.

What inspectors praised
  • Infection control

    Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections and had suitable arrangements for PPE, testing, hygiene and outbreaks.

    “We were assured the service were following safe infection prevention and control procedures to keep people safe” from the report
  • Visiting arrangements

    The home was facilitating visits for residents in line with the relevant guidance.

    “We saw the provider was facilitating visits for residents in line with relevant guidance.” from the report
  • Vaccination requirements

    The service was meeting the requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

    “The service was meeting the requirement to ensure non-exempt staff and visiting professionals were vaccinated against COVID-19.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How are you currently managing any COVID-19-related staffing pressures?
  2. 02How do you check that staff and visiting professionals meet the COVID-19 vaccination requirement or have an exemption?
  3. 03How are visits currently arranged, and what happens if infection levels or an outbreak affect visiting?
  4. 04How often are infection prevention and control policies reviewed?
  5. 05How do you make sure PPE, testing and outbreak arrangements remain effective?

This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Polefield Nursing Home

7 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.

  1. August 2023Goodcurrent rating
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Polefield Nursing Home →

  2. February 2022Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at Polefield Nursing Home →

  3. June 2019Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. October 2018Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. November 2017Goodup from Inadequate
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. July 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. January 2017Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. July 2016Inadequate
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. November 2015

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Manchester

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. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.

“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
Marion L., about Primrose N.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
Katrina R., about Camille F.
See live-in carers near ManchesterProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.