Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Walkden Manor

Goodpublished 13 August 2021, 5 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
The inspection looked only at fire safety, so the Safe rating was not reviewed. Inspectors found problems with fire doors, waste storage, fire-risk assessment arrangements and staff knowledge, although some checks and evacuation plans were in place.
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.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, November 2022

Inspected but not rated; the previous Good rating remained, but inspectors found fire-safety work still underway.

This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 6 October 2022. It looked only at fire safety, after concerns were raised by Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service.

Inspectors found several fire-safety problems, including waste stored near a gas boiler, fire doors that did not close properly, gaps under some doors and earlier blocked fire exits. The home was working on improvements, with deadlines of 1 November 2022 and 26 January 2023.

Some safety checks had been completed and each person had an emergency evacuation plan. The overall service was not re-rated. The previous Good rating, published in August 2021, remained in place, but Safe was recorded as inspected but not rated.

What inspectors praised
  • Building safety checks

    Inspectors found that checks of fire alarms, extinguishers, gas safety and electrical installations had been completed without faults being identified.

    “We found appropriate maintenance checks had been carried out, including checks of fire alarms and extinguishers.” from the report
  • Emergency evacuation plans

    Each person living at the home had a plan setting out their mobility needs and the help they might need from staff during an evacuation.

    “Each person living at the home had a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan which took into account people's mobility requirements and the support they may need from staff.” from the report
  • Some immediate action

    The chairs that had blocked a rear fire exit had been moved, and the waste near the gas boiler was being cleared.

    “Chairs had been found blocking a fire exit at the rear of the building and we found these had now been moved.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Fire risk in the loft

    serious

    A large amount of waste was stored close to a gas boiler, creating a fire risk. The area was being cleared during the inspection.

    “Within the loft space of the home, a large quantity of waste was being stored in close proximity to a gas boiler, which presented a fire risk.” from the report
  • Fire doors

    serious

    Several fire doors did not close correctly, some were damaged and some had gaps that could allow smoke through.

    “Several fire doors within the home were seen to not close correctly when the fire service had visited and some were in a state of disrepair.” from the report
  • Staff fire-safety knowledge

    needs fixing

    Staff knowledge was limited when inspectors asked about fire safety. More practical training was planned.

    “Staff knowledge had been limited when asked about fire safety. Further practical training was now planned to take place.” from the report
  • Risk assessment

    needs fixing

    The fire-risk assessment did not include the concerns identified by the fire service. A new assessment was being completed.

    “A fire risk assessment was in place, although it did not detail the concerns identified by the fire service.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Have all the fire-safety improvements required by the deadlines been completed?
  2. 02Have the fire doors been replaced or repaired, and have they passed a follow-up check?
  3. 03Has the waste near the gas boiler been removed, and how is fire-risk storage now monitored?
  4. 04What practical fire-safety training have staff completed since this inspection?
  5. 05Has the fire-risk assessment been updated to include all the concerns raised by the fire service?

This was a targeted inspection of fire safety only; the previous overall Good rating was not changed and the other areas of care were not reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 November 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, August 2021

Rated Good; inspectors found safe care, effective management and good infection control, with no concerns identified in the other areas because they were not inspected.

This was a planned, announced inspection. Inspectors visited on 29 June 2021 and also carried out work by telephone and email. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.

People said they felt safe. Inspectors found medicines were stored and given safely, there were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed, and the home was clean. They were also assured that infection control measures, including personal protective equipment, testing and visiting arrangements, were in place.

The home had systems to check the quality of care and gather feedback from people, relatives and staff. Inspectors found a positive culture and good teamwork. The home was rated Good overall, with Safe and Well-led also rated Good.

The inspectors did not inspect Effective, Caring or Responsive during this visit because they had found no areas of concern in the information available. Ratings for those areas from the previous comprehensive inspection were used in the overall rating.

What inspectors praised
  • Safe medicines

    The medicines records checked were complete and accurate. Medicines were securely stored, and plans guided staff when medicines were needed only occasionally.

    “Medicines were stored, recorded and administered safely.” from the report
  • Enough staff

    Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient for safe care. Recruitment included checks, interviews and references.

    “There were enough staff to care for people safely and feedback from relatives and people living at the home was that current staffing levels were sufficient.” from the report
  • Infection control

    The home was clean and inspectors were assured that PPE, testing, social distancing, visiting and outbreak arrangements were in place.

    “We were assured the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
  • Good management systems

    Audits covered important areas of care, and the home used meetings and surveys to gather views and make improvements.

    “An effective audit system was in place and covered areas such as care delivery, infection control, skin care, seeking consent and nutrition/hydration.” from the report
  • Positive culture

    People, relatives and staff described the management as approachable and the home as well managed. Inspectors found good teamwork.

    “Staff told us there was a positive culture at the home, with good team work throughout.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How will you assess and review my relative's individual risks, such as falls, choking, nutrition or skin problems?
  2. 02How do you make sure medicines are given at the right time and that any as-needed medicines are used appropriately?
  3. 03What staffing levels will be in place for my relative's needs, including at night?
  4. 04How will you involve me and my relative in care decisions and respond if we raise a concern?
  5. 05How are relatives kept informed if there is an infection outbreak or a change to visiting arrangements?

This was a planned inspection focused on Safe and Well-led, including infection control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous comprehensive ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 August 2021 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Walkden Manor

5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.

  1. November 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent rating
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at Walkden Manor →

  2. August 2021Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Walkden Manor →

  3. March 2019Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. May 2016Goodup from Inadequate
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. September 2015Inadequatestayed Inadequate
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. April 2015Inadequate
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. June 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. March 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. December 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. February 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 February 2011.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

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”
Marion L., about Primrose N.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
Katrina R., about Camille F.
See live-in carers near SalfordProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.