CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Regency Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, with safeguarding, staffing, infection control and equipment checks in place. Inspectors also found medicines recording shortfalls, an unsatisfactory electrical inspection and two recruitment files that initially lacked some information.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and development opportunities. People received suitable food, fluids and healthcare, and consent and best-interest arrangements were recorded where needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and caring. Inspectors saw warm, personalised interactions and found that privacy, dignity, independence and personal choices were supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's needs, routines and preferences and were kept under review. Activities, family contact, community links, complaints arrangements and end-of-life support were available.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers understood their responsibilities and used audits and improvement plans. However, audits had not identified the medicines recording shortfalls, which were addressed during and after the inspection.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Regency Care Centre is rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some medicines, electrical safety and record-keeping issues addressed or being improved.
This was the first inspection since the new provider registered the home. It was an unannounced, planned inspection over three days. Inspectors reviewed all five areas used for CQC ratings.
Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment records, training, safety checks and quality audits. They found people were treated kindly, had their choices respected and received personalised care.
The home had enough staff, good infection control and access to healthcare. Activities, community links and support for independence were available. New electronic care planning and medicines systems, more training and refurbishment were recent improvements.
The overall rating and all five question ratings were Good. Inspectors still found some shortfalls, including incomplete medicines records, an unsatisfactory electrical inspection and missing information in two recruitment files. These issues were being addressed, and no regulations were recorded as breached.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed warm, friendly and personalised interactions.
“People and their relatives said staff were kind, caring and respectful and described them as 'fantastic' and 'compassionate'.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included routines, choices and preferences. People were supported to make decisions and follow their own routines where possible.
“Care plans were personalised and included routines, choices and preferences.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered activities and maintained links with community groups, schools and the church. Families were supported to keep in contact during the pandemic.
“People had good links with the local community including schools and the church.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet assessed needs. Training and development opportunities were available, including specialist training.
“We were told the team was stable with numbers maintained 20% above the assessed staffing ratios.” from the report
Healthcare and nutrition
People had access to healthcare professionals and received meals that reflected their dietary needs and preferences.
“People had access to a range of medical and healthcare services, such as GP's, community nurses, physiotherapists, and speech and language therapists.” from the report
Electrical safety work
seriousAn electrical installation inspection was unsatisfactory, with several areas needing action. Completion had been scheduled for July 2021.
“An inspection of the electrical installation completed in May 2021 was 'unsatisfactory' with several areas requiring action.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingReasons for refusing medicines and checks on patches were not always recorded as required. Instructions for some thickeners and creams were also unclear on records and labels.
“We noted on one person's records, reasons for the refusal of medicines were not always documented and patches not checked daily in line with procedure.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingTwo of the five staff files checked had gaps relating to references and interview records. Further information was supplied after the inspection.
“We found shortfalls on two files in relation to references and interview records.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingThe home's audits had not detected the medicines recording problems. Managers addressed this with staff and expected the electronic system to reduce repeat errors.
“Shortfalls in relation to medication had not been identified through the audits.” from the report
- 01Has the electrical installation work identified in May 2021 been completed, and can you explain what was done?
- 02How does the new electronic medication system check medicine refusals, patches, thickeners and creams?
- 03How many staff are normally on duty on each unit, including nurses, and how is this adjusted to residents' needs?
- 04What activities are currently available, including outings and community links, and how are they adapted for people with different abilities?
- 05How are relatives kept informed about changes in care, health or visiting arrangements?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of all five key questions for the newly registered provider, including infection prevention and control measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 July 2021 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 Regency Care Centre
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 December 2020.
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 Bury
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. 94 can care for a couple. 11 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.