CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Silverdale
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- There were enough staff, risk assessments were in place and staff knew how to protect people from abuse. Inspectors found shortfalls in recording the application and opening dates of some creams, and made a recommendation about topical medicines.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- The home supported people with food, healthcare, training and daily choices. However, the Mental Capacity Act had not been followed for three residents, and the home was in breach of Regulation 11.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were patient, calm and attentive. They respected people's privacy, dignity, communication preferences and need for familiar staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People were supported to communicate, choose activities and take part in social and leisure interests. However, care plans contained limited information about goals and how people could develop their independence.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Managers were visible, approachable and working to improve the culture. However, records were not always complete or accurate, audits had missed medicine issues, and systems for monitoring quality were not established, resulting in a breach of Regulation 17.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Silverdale is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive support, but weaknesses in consent records and management.
This was an unannounced first inspection of the newly registered home. Inspectors met three residents, spoke with staff, managers, relatives and a professional, and reviewed care plans, medicine records, daily notes, incident reports, rotas, training records and management records.
Inspectors found enough staff who knew residents well. People were supported with dignity, communication, activities, healthcare, food and daily choices. The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Responsive.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective and Well-led. Mental Capacity Act requirements had not been followed for three residents, care records did not always reflect current needs, and audits had missed some medicine-record problems. The overall rating was Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were calm, patient and attentive. They supported people's preferred communication, privacy, dignity and independence.
“Relatives were confident their family members were well supported and treated with respect and dignity.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to go shopping, pursue interests and take part regularly in chosen social and leisure activities.
“People were supported to participate in their chosen social and leisure interests on a regular basis.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act records
seriousFor three residents, there was no evidence of mental capacity assessments or best-interest discussions about the decision to live at the home. This was a breach of Regulation 11.
“There was no evidence the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act had been followed.” from the report
Management records and audits
seriousSome care plans and daily records were not complete or up to date. Audits had not found the problems with cream records, and quality-monitoring systems were not established.
“The service did not maintain complete and accurate records in respect of all service users.” from the report
Topical medicines
needs fixingOne person's records did not accurately explain how creams should be applied, and creams were not always dated when opened. CQC recommended that the provider seek advice about managing topical medicines.
“Creams were not consistently dated when opened. This meant we could not be assured they remained effective and safe to use.” from the report
Goals and independence
needs fixingCare plans gave limited information about people's goals and did not set out clear ways to help them achieve those goals or develop independence.
“There were no clear pathways to support people to achieve their goals.” from the report
- 01Have mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions now been completed for every resident, including decisions about where they live?
- 02How are cream application instructions and opening dates checked on medicine records?
- 03When will each resident's care plan include clear goals, independence skills and steps to achieve them?
- 04What new audits or checks are being used to make sure care records are complete and accurate?
- 05How are residents' and families' views now being gathered formally, and what progress has been made on the CQC action plan?
This was an unannounced first inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the previous Inadequate rating was under the former provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 June 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.
Every inspection of Silverdale
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- June 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2022Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 November 2022.
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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.