CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Urmston Manor
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were safe, including visitor checks, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Outstanding
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
The inspection took place on 11 November 2020 and was announced. It was a targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic, looking only at infection prevention and control.
Inspectors were assured about visitor controls, social distancing, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning, hygiene and the management of outbreaks. They were also assured that the infection prevention and control policy was up to date.
The home had extra uniforms and shoes for staff, support for staff travel without public transport, and a continuity plan for the pandemic and winter. People continued activities they enjoyed and were supported to contact relatives using technology.
Checks at the entrance
Staff and professional visitors had temperature checks, completed a questionnaire and were observed washing their hands when they entered.
“Staff and professional visitors to the service had their temperatures taken, completed a questionnaire and were observed washing their hands on entry to the home.” from the report
Infection control measures
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely and had arrangements for testing, cleaning, hygiene and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Contact with relatives
Technology was used to support hand washing and help people keep in touch with their relatives.
“The service used technology to encourage hand washing and to support people to contact their relatives.” from the report
Continuity planning
The home had a plan to support people through the pandemic and the winter months.
“There was a thorough continuity plan in place to support people during the pandemic and the winter months.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How is the current infection prevention and control policy kept up to date?
- 02How often are people living in the home and staff tested, and how are test results acted on?
- 03How are visitors checked before entering, and what happens if someone has symptoms or has been exposed to infection?
- 04How does the home manage infection outbreaks and support people to keep in touch with relatives?
- 05How is the continuity plan being used to support people through winter or other disruptions?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only, so the home was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 November 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 2019
Rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found exceptionally caring, responsive and well-led care, with some minor safety-record concerns.
Inspectors visited on 15 and 21 March 2019. This was an unannounced inspection on the first day and an announced visit on the second. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Outstanding overall. It was rated Good for Safe and Outstanding for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found staff knew people very well and supported them to keep meaningful relationships, interests and links with their community.
Inspectors found safe staffing, safe medicines systems and a clean environment. They also found two minor weaknesses in records and recruitment checks from before the current provider took over. The report says this was the first inspection since the home was registered with the CQC in April 2018. Under the former provider, the service had previously been rated Requires Improvement overall.
Personalised care
Staff knew people well and supported them to continue hobbies, relationships and community activities. Inspectors found this care went beyond routine support.
“People experienced highly person-centred care that they described as going above and beyond their expectations.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Feedback from people, relatives and professionals was consistently very positive about the kindness, dignity and compassion shown by staff.
“Without exception, all the people living at the home, their visitors and professionals we received feedback from, told us staff were exceptionally respectful, kind, caring and went out of their way to provide person-centred care.” from the report
Strong health support
The home worked proactively with health and social care services. Staff accompanied people to hospital when wished and kept in contact during admissions.
“The home had introduced an initiative they called 'never alone'. This meant staff would always accompany people (if they wished) when attending hospital for planned or unplanned admissions.” from the report
Activities and community links
People were supported with regular trips, activities, school links and visits to places that mattered to them.
“Staff arranged regular trips out from the home, and there was a full programme of activities taking place in the home in addition.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. They found no omissions in the sample of medicines records they checked.
“We checked a sample of medication administration records (MARs), which staff had completed accurately and without omissions.” from the report
One unclear risk assessment
minorOne person's pressure ulcer risk assessment did not give staff clear guidance because the computer-generated recommendations had not been fully personalised. Inspectors said the manager knew the correct actions and had no concerns about the care being provided.
“one person's pressure ulcer risk assessment did not provide clear guidance to staff as the recommendations had not been sufficiently edited.” from the report
Older recruitment records
needs fixingInspectors found some recruitment-check shortfalls for staff employed before the current provider took over. They said staff recruited by the current provider had the required checks.
“There were some shortfalls in recruitment practices followed for staff employed prior to the current provider taking over.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure pressure ulcer risk assessments give staff clear, personalised instructions?
- 02What checks were completed for staff who were employed before the current provider took over?
- 03How would you support my relative to continue their hobbies, community activities and important relationships?
- 04How would staff support my relative if they needed to go into hospital?
- 05How do you use feedback, falls information and other audits to improve care?
This was a routine scheduled comprehensive inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five CQC questions, including care and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 May 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 Urmston Manor
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- April 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 April 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 Trafford
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. 91 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.