CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Silverdale
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, staff were suitably recruited, risks were assessed and medicines were given as prescribed. However, inspectors found times when communal areas were left without nearby staff and recommended a review of staffing levels.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed, staff were trained and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare. Capacity assessments were not always decision-specific or completed in line with the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, knew people well and respected privacy, dignity and independence. People and families were involved in decisions, although records did not always show this clearly.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's needs and communication support, and people could take part in activities and trips. The level of personal detail in care plans varied, including for daily routines and end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team. However, audits and reviews did not always identify or address weaknesses in staffing, capacity assessments, care records and some aspects of care.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but staffing and management checks need improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 4 and 11 December 2023. Inspectors observed care, checked the building and staffing, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
People were generally safe and well cared for. The home was clean, medicines were given as prescribed, staff were kind, and people received personalised support, activities and help with food, drink and healthcare.
The main weaknesses were that staffing was sometimes too low to provide prompt support, capacity assessments were not always completed properly, and management checks did not always identify these problems. Safe, effective, caring and responsive care were rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement, which lowered the overall picture but the overall rating remained Good.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and respecting their privacy, dignity and independence.
“Staff were kind and caring and knew the people they supported well.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and tidy. Laundry arrangements and staff use of protective equipment helped reduce infection risks.
“The service was clean and tidy, and any malodours were quickly addressed by a team of domestic cleaning staff who were busy throughout the day.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could join group activities, individual sessions, trips out and community events. Relatives' meetings were also used to gather ideas.
“People enjoyed the activities and commented, "I love the trips out.” from the report
Support with health and nutrition
People were helped to eat and drink, and specialist advice was sought when needed. Staff supported people to access healthcare services.
“People were supported to access health care services as needed.” from the report
Staffing and oversight
needs fixingThere were times when staff were difficult to find and people in communal areas might not have had prompt support. Inspectors recommended a review of staffing levels and the building layout.
“There were times when it was difficult to find staff, and groups of people were left in communal areas with no staff near to provide support, should it be required quickly.” from the report
Capacity assessments
needs fixingRecords did not always show that assessments of people's ability to make specific decisions followed the required process. Inspectors recommended stronger oversight and staff support in this area.
“However, records did not demonstrate the capacity assessments were completed in line with the requirements of MCA and were decision specific.” from the report
Management checks
needs fixingAudits and reviews were in place but did not always identify weaknesses found during the inspection. This included care records, staffing and capacity assessments.
“However, it was not clear that these were suitably robust to ensure any shortfalls, such as those identified at this inspection in relation to staffing, mental capacity assessment and recording keeping, were suitably robust.” from the report
Some care records lacked detail
minorSome care plans did not contain enough personal detail about routines, involvement in reviews or end-of-life wishes. Inspectors also said aspects of oral care needed improvement.
“The quality of different parts of people's care plan did vary with some containing a lot of personalised detail and some lacking detail” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to staffing levels and staff allocation in communal areas?
- 02How are capacity assessments now checked to make sure they are specific to each decision?
- 03How do managers make sure care plans are reviewed promptly after falls or other changes in risk?
- 04How are oral care needs recorded, delivered and checked?
- 05How are residents and relatives involved in reviewing daily routines and end-of-life care plans?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good, published on 18 October 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 January 2024 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, October 2018
Silverdale was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements made since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited on 29 and 30 August 2018. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also observed care, looked around the home and checked care files, staff records, medicines records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, clean surroundings and appropriate safeguarding arrangements.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Care plans included personal preferences and information about how people wanted to be supported. The home offered a wide range of activities and had systems for handling complaints and checking the quality of care.
At the previous inspection in March 2017, the home was rated Requires Improvement overall and had four breaches. Inspectors said the necessary improvements had been made and that the home was meeting the legal requirements at this inspection.
Safe and clean setting
Inspectors found the home clean and found infection control equipment and processes in place.
“During the inspection we found the home was clean throughout and had appropriate infection control processes in place.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Staff who administered them had training and regular competency checks.
“Medicines were stored, handled and administered safely and effectively.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, privacy and independence. Inspectors observed warm and patient interactions.
“Throughout the inspection we saw positive interactions between staff and people living at the home.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's histories, preferences, abilities and support needs. This helped staff provide care in a person-centred way.
“Each file contained detailed, personalised information such as people's likes, dislikes, what others admired about them, what was important to them and how staff could best support them.” from the report
Activities
The home provided a varied programme of activities, outings and events, including options for people who stayed up late or had difficulty sleeping.
“The home had a comprehensive activity schedule in place, which included a variety of in house activities, along with community based outings and events.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
Inspectors said the provider had addressed the earlier problems with infection control, staff skills, supervision and management checks.
“At this inspection we found the provider had made the necessary improvements and was meeting all the requirements of the regulations.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you decide how many staff are needed for each shift, and what happens if staffing levels change?
- 02How are medicines checked now, including medicines given only when needed?
- 03How do you keep staff training, supervision and competency checks up to date?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs, preferences or ability to make decisions change?
- 05How do you involve relatives in meetings, care reviews and complaints?
This was an inspection covering all five CQC key questions and the overall rating, including the care provided and the home environment. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 October 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 Silverdale
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 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 Stockport
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. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.