CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Pritchard Street
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe, and staff understood safeguarding responsibilities. Risk assessments, recruitment checks and staffing levels were satisfactory, although medicine temperature checks were not being done in people's bedrooms and the fire risk assessment identified areas needing immediate action.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant induction, training, supervision and appraisals. People had choice and control, and were supported with meals, health appointments and developing independent living skills.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed to be kind, caring and supportive. They knew people's preferences and backgrounds, involved people in care plan reviews and respected privacy, equality and family contact.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were person-centred and included people's goals, choices and signs that their wellbeing might change. People had access to activities, work, education and support to make complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager had systems to monitor quality, report incidents and involve people through meetings and a resident forum. The report noted that resident surveys were behind schedule.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Pritchard Street was rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred support, with some safety checks needing attention.
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection on 31 July 2018. One inspector spoke with two people living in the home, staff and managers. They also reviewed care records, recruitment files, training records, medicines information, policies and quality checks.
The home supports four adults with enduring mental health needs. Inspectors found people felt safe, staff were trained and recruitment checks were completed. Risk assessments were regularly reviewed, and staffing levels were considered adequate.
People were treated kindly and supported to make choices and build independence. Care plans reflected people's preferences and goals. People were supported with cooking, activities, work placements, education, health appointments and planning for more independent living.
The overall rating remained Good. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found no serious risks or concerns and said the service was meeting the relevant fundamental standards.
Regular risk reviews
Risk assessments were available to staff and updated regularly or when people's circumstances changed.
“Risk assessments were in place and accessible to staff members to keep people safe. We saw these were reviewed and updated on a regular basis or when changes were identified.” from the report
Safe recruitment
The home completed identity, reference and Disclosure and Barring Service checks before staff were employed.
“Robust recruitment systems and processes were in place. We saw references, identity checks and Disclosure and Barring Service checks were completed before staff were employed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff being kind, caring and supportive. Staff knew people well and respected their individual needs.
“We observed throughout our inspection that staff were kind, caring and supportive of people who used the service.” from the report
Building independence
The home encouraged people to develop everyday skills and move towards less supported living.
“Throughout our inspection and from records we looked at, we saw people were encouraged to be independent.” from the report
Person-centred plans
Care plans recorded people's choices, preferences, achievements and goals, including information about staying well.
“We saw detailed, person centred care plans were in place. These clearly reflected people's choices and preferences, including what they had already achieved and what they still wanted to achieve.” from the report
Medicine temperature checks
needs fixingMedicines kept as stock had daily temperature checks, but checks were not being done in people's bedrooms. The manager said this would start immediately.
“Temperature checks were taken daily for medicines kept as stock, although these checks were not done in people's own bedrooms.” from the report
Fire risk actions
seriousThe fire risk assessment identified areas needing immediate action. The manager provided an action plan for completing the work.
“The fire risk assessment in place showed some areas within the home that required immediate action.” from the report
Accessible information
minorThe home was still working on meeting the Accessible Information Standard, although managers said they knew what support could be accessed if needed.
“The registered manager told us they were currently working on this as it was highlighted to them in an inspection at another service they managed.” from the report
Resident surveys
minorThe manager said surveys for people using the home had not been sent out on time, although they were ready to distribute.
“The registered manager told us they were behind in sending out surveys to people who used the service.” from the report
- 01What action was taken after the inspection to complete the areas identified in the fire risk assessment?
- 02Are temperature checks now carried out for medicines stored in people's bedrooms, and how are these recorded?
- 03How do you provide information in accessible formats for people with communication needs?
- 04How often are resident surveys now sent out, and how are the results used?
- 05How will you support my relative to build independence while keeping their care plan up to date?
This was a comprehensive inspection of all five areas, and all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 August 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 Pritchard Street
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 January 2011.
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 Blackburn with Darwen
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. 12 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.