CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Rookery
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including the use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning, visiting arrangements and social distancing. The provider also said it had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
The Rookery was inspected but not rated; inspectors found COVID-19 infection-control arrangements in place.
This was a targeted inspection on 8 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures. The visit was announced 24 hours beforehand.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, supporting testing, following social distancing and shielding rules, and managing visiting in line with government guidance. They also found that the infection-control policy was up to date.
The home had increased cleaning of high-touch surfaces. It had signs about COVID-19 risks, testing and temperature checks for visitors, and staff training in infection control and protective equipment.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not produce an overall quality rating or a rated assessment of all five key areas.
Infection-control arrangements
The home had updated its infection-control policies and had visible information about COVID-19 risks and infection-control practices.
“The service had updated their policies and procedures to ensure infection prevention and control (IPC) processes were robust.” from the report
Cleaning
Cleaning had been increased, particularly for surfaces that people touched frequently.
“Cleaning regimes had been changed to ensure robust processes were in place. High touch surfaces were being cleaned more regularly.” from the report
Protective equipment
Protective equipment was available throughout the building, and staff had received related training.
“Donning and doffing stations were situated in the service and personal protective equipment (PPE) was available throughout the building.” from the report
Visiting checks
Visitors had their temperatures checked and were required to take a lateral flow test before entering.
“All visitors had their temperatures checked and were required to carry out a lateral flow device (LFD) test before entering.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection-control and visiting arrangements are in place now?
- 02How does the home currently manage staffing pressures linked to COVID-19?
- 03Are visitors still required to have checks or take tests before entering?
- 04How often are high-touch surfaces cleaned now?
- 05What are the home's current ratings for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it was inspected but not rated and did not assess all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 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, June 2019
Heathcotes (Salford) is Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some rooms needing more personalisation.
This was a planned, comprehensive inspection. The first day was unannounced. One inspector visited on 21 and 22 May 2019, spoke with all six people living there, staff and managers, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and respect, involved in their care, and supported to make choices and build independence.
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, diets and goals. Medicines were managed safely. The home was clean, staff were trained and supported, and managers used audits and feedback to oversee the service.
At the previous focused inspection, the overall rating was Good but Well-led was Requires Improvement. This comprehensive inspection found that management processes had become more robust, so Well-led was rated Good.
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's preferences, diets, dislikes and what worked well for them. People also had plans covering achievements and future goals.
“People had detailed person-centred care plans with reference to people's diets, their likes, dislikes and what works well for them.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive relationships between staff and residents. People said staff treated them kindly and with respect.
“We observed positive interactions between staff and people. Staff had good relationships with people and were seen to be caring and respectful towards people and their wishes.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely. Records were up to date, stock counts were accurate and staff had training and competency checks.
“Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Choice and independence
People helped choose meals and activities and were encouraged to do tasks for themselves. Staff supported people to work towards their own goals.
“People were responsible for setting their own goals and staff supported people to achieve them.” from the report
Improved management
The home had stronger management and monitoring processes than at the previous focused inspection. Regular audits, meetings and feedback were used to check quality.
“At this inspection we found processes within the service had changed to make them more robust and the home was well-led.” from the report
Some rooms lacked personalisation
minorInspectors found that communal areas displayed residents' artwork, but some people's bedrooms had not yet been personalised. The home was encouraging residents to choose colours, posters or wallpaper.
“However, there was a lack of personalisation in people's rooms.” from the report
End of life training
minorThe home did not routinely provide end of life care. Staff had not received end of life training at the time, although training was available if it became necessary.
“The registered manager told us staff did not receive end of life training, however they did have access to training should the need arise.” from the report
- 01How would you assess and record my relative's individual needs, preferences, diet and future goals?
- 02How would you support my relative to personalise their bedroom and make choices about their surroundings?
- 03How do you check that medicines are given correctly, especially as-needed medicines?
- 04What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative, and how would you support their independence?
- 05If my relative needed end of life care, what support and staff training would be arranged?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five questions; the previous overall rating was Good, while Well-led had previously been Requires Improvement and was rated Good after this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 June 2019 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 Rookery
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
- June 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 September 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Salford
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. 90 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.