CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Treetops Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Treetops Nursing Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe care and improved management after earlier concerns.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out between 26 November and 10 December 2020. Inspectors visited the home, spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, and checked care plans, medicine records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, staffing, equipment and infection control were managed well. They also found positive feedback about the management and a good team culture.
The rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in July 2019. Earlier concerns about building safety, medicine storage, record keeping and governance had been addressed, and the home was no longer in breach of the regulations mentioned in that earlier report.
Risks were managed
Risk assessments covered areas such as mobility, nutrition, skin care and choking. The earlier concerns about window restrictors and unsafe equipment had been addressed.
“Risks within the home were well managed and record keeping, storage of confidential information and governance systems had all improved since our last inspection.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicine administration records were complete, and medicines were stored securely. Staff checked that people took their medicines safely.
“Medication administration records (MARs) were completed accurately with no missing signatures.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about the use of protective equipment, testing, social distancing, cleanliness and arrangements for preventing or managing outbreaks.
“We were assured the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were carried out before staff started work.
“There were enough staff working at the home to care for people and the feedback we received was that staffing levels were sufficient.” from the report
Improved management systems
Monthly audits covered care plans, medicines, the building, infection control and Covid-19. The home also used feedback from people, relatives and staff.
“A detailed quality assurance audit was undertaken by the home manager each month and this covered areas such as care plans, medication, the environment, infection control and Covid-19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you check that the improvements to building safety and equipment storage found at this inspection have continued?
- 02How are medicine records checked now, including records for thickened drinks and medicines that must be given at particular times?
- 03How often are staffing levels reviewed if people's needs change or more staff are needed?
- 04What do your monthly audits currently show about care plans, medicines, infection control and the building?
- 05What are the current ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, as these areas were not inspected during this visit?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, with the other ratings carried forward from previous comprehensive inspections. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 December 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, July 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but safety checks and management systems were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 4 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff, and reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files and other records.
People generally said they felt safe and received kind, respectful care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good support with food and healthcare, personalised care plans, activities and appropriate handling of complaints.
There were important shortfalls. Some window restrictors were missing, building tools were left where people could reach them, and thickened fluids were not always stored or recorded safely. Care plans were not always kept securely, and the home's checks had not identified these problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The provider was in breach of Regulations 12 and 17.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity and respecting their privacy.
“People and their relatives spoke positively about the standard of care provided and that staff treated people well.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient. Staff were recruited with the required checks, and agency staff were not used.
“There were enough staff working at the home to care for people safely.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's needs, choices, likes, dislikes and life stories. Staff followed people's preferences during the inspection.
“Each person living at the home had their own care plan in place and we reviewed six of these during the inspection.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People received support with meals and suitable food textures. The home also helped people access healthcare professionals and appointments.
“We saw people received food and drink of the correct consistency, such as fork mashable diets, when they had been assessed as being at risk of choking and aspiration.” from the report
Activities and complaints
A range of activities was available and well attended. Complaints were recorded and responses were provided when people were unhappy.
“A central log of complaints had been kept and we noted responses had been provided where people had been unhappy with the service they received.” from the report
Unsafe building work
seriousSaws and power drills were left where residents could reach them, and there was no risk assessment for the ongoing work. Some window restrictors were also missing.
“We saw items such as saws and power drills were left unattended and were accessible to people living at the home.” from the report
Thickened fluids
seriousThickened fluids for people with swallowing difficulties were not signed for on medicine records and were left accessible. This created a risk of unsafe use.
“These were not signed on medication administration records (MAR) when used and were left accessible on drinks trolleys and in the lounge area.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingThe home's audits had not identified all the risks found during the inspection. Regular checks of window restrictors were not in place.
“Improvements were required to overall quality assurance systems to ensure they identified and addressed the concerns found in this inspection.” from the report
Care records not secure
needs fixingCare plans were kept in an office that was not always locked. Unauthorised people could potentially access personal information.
“People's care plans were stored in an office which was not always locked when not in use.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to make sure building tools and other renovation equipment cannot be reached by residents?
- 02Are all window restrictors now fitted, checked regularly and recorded as safe?
- 03How are thickened fluids stored, labelled and recorded when given to residents with swallowing difficulties?
- 04How are care plans and other confidential records kept locked and protected from unauthorised access?
- 05What changes have been made to the quality audits so that risks are found and dealt with promptly?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; it was the first inspection since the home re-registered in June 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 July 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 Treetops Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 June 2018.
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 Oldham
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. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.