CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Bungalow
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable safeguarding, recruitment, risk management, infection control and medicines arrangements. Staffing levels were considered enough to meet people's needs, although the bathroom lock needed changing so staff could enter in an emergency.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had induction, training and supervision. People's healthcare, nutrition, hydration and communication needs were recorded, although the manager said formal mental capacity assessments would be introduced in future.
- Caring?
- Good
- Relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors found that privacy, dignity, choice and confidentiality were promoted, but one relative felt some staff could do more to build independence and skills.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans were personalised and communication needs were recorded. However, relatives said staff were not always consistent or familiar with people's needs, and one relative felt activities and encouragement were not sufficient.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Relatives and staff were generally happy with the management. Regular meetings, feedback and audits were used, and inspectors found the quality and safety checks effective.
What inspectors found, December 2018
The Bungalow was rated Good overall, but inspectors found the service was not always responsive because staff consistency and activities needed improvement.
This was the first comprehensive inspection. It was announced and took place on 9 October 2018. Inspectors spoke with relatives and staff, reviewed care records and checked recruitment, training, policies, complaints and quality checks.
The home provides short-term respite accommodation and personal care for up to two younger adults or children. No younger adults or children were staying there during the inspection, so inspectors relied on records and feedback from people who had used the home during the previous 12 months.
The home was rated Good for being safe, effective, caring and well-led. It was rated Requires Improvement for being responsive. Relatives raised concerns about people not always being supported by familiar staff, and about some staff not doing enough to encourage activities and independence.
Inspectors said all regulations reviewed were being met. They made a recommendation that people should be supported by staff who know their needs. This was the home's first inspection, so there was no previous rating to compare.
Safe recruitment and safeguarding
Staff had the required recruitment checks and understood how to protect people from abuse. Inspectors found risk information was shared between staff.
“These checks helped to ensure that staff employed were suitable to provide care and support to people staying at the service.” from the report
Training and health support
Staff received induction, relevant training and supervision. Relatives said staff had the knowledge and skills to meet people's needs, including health, food and drink needs.
“Staff received an appropriate induction, effective training and regular supervision.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors found that staff promoted privacy, dignity, choice and confidentiality.
“Relatives told us staff were caring and kind to their family members when supporting them.” from the report
Management checks
The manager held meetings, sought feedback and completed regular audits. Inspectors found that these checks helped maintain care and safety.
“We found that the audits completed were effective in ensuring that appropriate levels of quality and safety were being maintained at the service.” from the report
Inconsistent staff
needs fixingSome people were not always supported by staff who knew them and understood their needs. Relatives said they had raised this but improvements had not been made.
“We recommend the provider ensures that people are supported by staff who are familiar with their needs and how to support them effectively.” from the report
Activities and independence
needs fixingOne relative felt staff did not do enough to encourage activities, conversation and independence. Different staff were said to have different approaches.
“They didn't stimulate or encourage [relative] enough. There was little conversation.” from the report
Bathroom emergency access
needs fixingThe bathroom lock did not allow staff to enter quickly in an emergency. The manager said it would be replaced before anyone else stayed at the home.
“We noted that the lock on the bathroom door did not allow for staff to gain entry in an emergency.” from the report
Religious dietary needs
minorA relative reported one occasion when food did not reflect the person's religious beliefs. The home sought advice after the incident.
“There had been an occasion when staff had provided their family member with food which did not reflect their religious beliefs.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure the same staff, or staff familiar with the person, support each respite stay?
- 02What has changed since the inspection to improve staff consistency?
- 03How do you plan and record activities, conversation and opportunities to build independence?
- 04How do you check and meet each person's religious, cultural and dietary needs?
- 05Has the bathroom lock been replaced so staff can enter in an emergency?
This was an announced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and no younger adults or children were staying at the home during the visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 December 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 The Bungalow
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 August 2017.
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.