CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Owls Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe recruitment, safe medicines management and effective infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and preferences were assessed and care plans were reviewed. Staff were trained, food and fluids were managed well, and healthcare support was provided promptly.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions and encouraged to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and communication needs were recorded. People had choices, activities and trips, and knew how to raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and owner used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor the home and make improvements. Staff understood their roles and relatives were involved in discussions about the service.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with good leadership.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 17 December 2019. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, the manager, the owner and the cook. They observed care, checked records and medicines, reviewed staffing and recruitment, and checked that the building was clean and safe.
The inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, staffing, infection control and risk management were handled safely. Staff were trained, people received help with health needs, and food and activities were well regarded.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care was personalised, people were involved in decisions, and their communication needs were considered. The home had systems for complaints, although no formal complaints had been received since the previous inspection.
All five CQC areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous rating was also Good, published on 30 March 2017.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's assessed needs. Staff were visible and provided support when people needed it.
“Staff were visible to people in their care and provided support as and when required.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with patience, kindness and respect. Staff understood people's different backgrounds and needs.
“People continued to be treated with respect, patience and kindness.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, interests and signs of distress or anxiety. People were supported to make everyday choices.
“People continued to receive care and support which was personalised to them.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered varied activities and outings, including entertainment and trips. People were encouraged to maintain relationships and interests.
“The registered manager provided a range of activities to improve people's wellbeing.” from the report
Open management
The manager and owner monitored the service through audits and meetings. Inspectors found evidence that action was taken when audits identified improvements.
“The owner and registered manager regularly assessed and monitored the service through formal and informal methods such as audits, and meetings with people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you update my relative's care plan if their needs or preferences changed?
- 02What dementia care training have staff completed, and how is this kept up to date?
- 03How do you make sure medicines are given safely and at the right time?
- 04What activities and outings would be suitable for my relative's interests and abilities?
- 05How can my family raise a concern, and how would we be kept informed about the response?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at the care provided, the premises, records, staffing, medicines and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 January 2020 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 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements made since the provider changed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 March 2017. Inspectors spoke with five people living in the home, one relative, staff and care professionals. They observed care, checked the building, and reviewed care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The report found that people felt safe and well cared for. Staff were kind, respectful and responsive. Medicines were given as prescribed, staffing levels were sufficient, the home was clean, and people received suitable food, healthcare and activities.
Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. Staff understood people's needs and the legal safeguards for people who could not make some decisions themselves. The provider had refurbished much of the home and had systems for checking quality and dealing with issues.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the first inspection since the provider changed and registered with the CQC in June 2016.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were ordered, given, stored and disposed of correctly. The new computerised system was designed to reduce mistakes, and no medicines errors had occurred since it was introduced.
“We saw medicines were ordered appropriately, checked on receipt into the home, administered as prescribed and stored and disposed of correctly.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found sufficient competent and experienced staff during the day and night. Staff rotas showed that the team covered extra hours without using agency staff.
“We saw there were sufficient numbers of competent and experienced staff to provide people with personal care and social and leisure activities.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were patient, attentive and respectful. Inspectors saw that they explained care, protected privacy and treated people sensitively.
“We saw good interactions and communication between staff and people who lived at the home.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and wishes. People and relatives were involved where appropriate, and plans were reviewed as needs changed.
“Care records were informative and personalised.” from the report
Improvements and oversight
The provider had refurbished the home and introduced ways for people to give their views. The management team carried out regular checks and acted on issues.
“The registered provider and registered manager were 'hands on' and were involved in care or activities on a regular basis.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How is the new computerised medicines system working now, and how are any errors or missed doses checked?
- 02How many staff are usually on duty during the day and night, and how are sickness and annual leave covered?
- 03How are activities matched to each person's interests, and how often are people supported to go out?
- 04How often are each person's care plan and risk assessments reviewed, and how are relatives involved?
- 05How are people's views and complaints collected and acted on?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the service; it was the first inspection since the provider changed and registered in June 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 May 2017 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 Owls Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 June 2016.
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
32 live-in carers within about an hour of Blackpool
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 £1,250 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“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.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.