CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Rockmount Northwest
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were generally safe. They identified a need to improve eye protection and bare-below-the-elbow practice.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control overall, but said eye protection and bare-below-the-elbow practice needed improving.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 20 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic and asked about staffing pressures.
The home had systems for testing, cleaning, visitors, personal protective equipment and social distancing. Inspectors were assured that people were protected from infection and that visiting was managed in line with guidance.
There were two areas to improve. The home needed to increase the use of eye protection when supporting people who had COVID-19 and to follow bare-below-the-elbow practice. Its infection control policy also needed updating to include this guidance.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not provide a new overall quality rating or a rated judgement for the other care areas.
Testing arrangements
The home had regular testing for staff and for people using the service who went into the community. It also checked visitors had a recent negative test.
“Routine testing for all staff and people who receive support has been implemented.” from the report
Cleaning
Cleaning schedules covered high-touch areas and records showed that the schedules were being followed.
“Records show compliance with the cleaning schedule.” from the report
Visits and social contact
The home supported essential carers to visit and helped people understand restrictions. Staff also supported people going into the community.
“Essential carers were also supported to be appropriately trusted and visit their relatives.” from the report
Staffing support
The provider said it had managed COVID-19 staffing pressures without needing agency staff. Staff worked extra hours and were paid while isolating.
“The service has not needed to use any agency minimal staff have had to take time of due to COVID-19” from the report
PPE practice
needs fixingThe home had enough personal protective equipment, but inspectors said eye protection needed to be used more when supporting people with COVID-19. Bare-below-the-elbow practice also needed to improve.
“However, the service needed to make sure that they increased the usage of eye protection when supporting people with a positive COVID-19 result and implementing bare below the elbow as best practice.” from the report
Policy update
minorThe infection prevention and control policy had not yet been updated to include the eye protection and bare-below-the-elbow guidance.
“The manager intended to update the policy to include eye protection and bare below the elbow guidance for staff.” from the report
- 01How did you increase the use of eye protection when supporting people with COVID-19?
- 02How do you now check that staff follow bare-below-the-elbow practice?
- 03Has the infection prevention and control policy been updated, and can we see the relevant guidance?
- 04What arrangements are currently in place for testing staff, residents and visitors?
- 05When were admissions allowed to reopen after the inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 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.
What inspectors found, May 2018
Rated Good overall, but well-led Requires Improvement because care records and some management checks were not yet reliably audited.
Inspectors visited on 19 and 20 April 2018. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with nine people living in the home, staff, managers and health and social care professionals. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, rotas, complaints and quality checks.
People told inspectors they felt safe and were happy with their care. Staff were described as kind and knowledgeable. The home had enough staff, followed safe recruitment checks, managed medicines safely and supported people's health, meals, independence and activities.
The main weakness was how the home was managed and checked. Care plans were not routinely audited, checks on the provider's oversight of the manager were not formal enough, and staff survey results had not been analysed. Mental capacity assessments were also not formally recorded, although the home had applied for required safeguards.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. This means the care was generally good, but the systems used to monitor and improve the home still needed strengthening.
People felt safe
Everyone spoken with said they felt safe and secure. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns.
“All people we spoke with told us they felt safe and secure with the care they received.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as caring, and inspectors observed warm, respectful relationships. Staff supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“We observed staff interacted in a caring, friendly and respectful manner with people living in the home.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, mental health warning signs and the support they wanted. Plans were reviewed when needs changed.
“The care plans were well written, comprehensive and person centred.” from the report
Community activities
People were supported to take part in activities such as football, the gym, golf, art classes and social events. They could also develop everyday living skills.
“There was a strong emphasis on providing and supporting people with a variety of activities of their choice.” from the report
Improvement since the previous inspection
The provider had made significant improvements to governance, medicines management and quality assurance after the previous inspection.
“During this inspection we found that significant work had been carried out to improve the governance and quality assurance systems in the home.” from the report
Care plans were not routinely audited
needs fixingThe home did not have formal checks of care files. This meant managers might not identify inaccurate or out-of-date information promptly.
“We noted that care files were not routinely audited to ensure the information they contained was accurate and up to date.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome decisions about people's ability to make choices were not supported by formally recorded assessments. Inspectors recommended seeking best practice on mental capacity and safeguards.
“We found mental capacity assessments had not been formally recorded to demonstrate how the registered manager had reached the decision” from the report
Privacy during medicines administration
needs fixingMedicines were given safely, but inspectors found the existing clinic-style arrangement did not adequately address privacy and dignity.
“However, issues of dignity and privacy regarding the way medicines were administered had still not been addressed.” from the report
Some incidents were not reported
seriousInspectors found incidents involving falls had not been reported to the CQC. The manager said this was an oversight and promised to report such incidents in future.
“While the registered manager had reported a number of incidents to CQC. We found three incidents that had not been reported.” from the report
Management oversight was not formal enough
needs fixingRecords did not clearly show how the provider checked that the manager was meeting regulatory requirements. The provider said formal compliance visit records would be introduced.
“However, this was not robust enough to demonstrate how they had checked that the registered manager was complying with regulations.” from the report
- 01What formal checks are now used to audit every person's care records and keep them accurate and up to date?
- 02How are mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions recorded for people who may not be able to make particular decisions?
- 03How are medicines administered now, and how is privacy and dignity protected?
- 04What process is now used to make sure all incidents, including falls linked to medical conditions, are reported correctly?
- 05How does the provider now record its oversight of the registered manager and follow up any concerns?
This was a comprehensive inspection of all five key questions, following a previous inspection in October 2017 that had focused on Safe and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 May 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 Rockmount Northwest
3 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 April 2012.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.