CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Whalley Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about testing, visiting arrangements, admissions, outbreak management and the infection-control policy. They were only somewhat assured about the safe use of personal protective equipment and the hygiene practices of the premises.
- 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?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control arrangements, but some staff were not wearing masks correctly.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 1 October 2021. It followed concerns about infection prevention and control. Inspectors looked only at these measures.
Inspectors found regular testing, suitable signs, hand sanitisers and enough personal protective equipment. People had care plans and risk assessments when isolating or testing positive. The home also supported contact with relatives during restrictions.
There were some shortfalls. Not all staff wore masks correctly, and concerns had been raised about cleanliness and hygiene. The home had already deep-cleaned affected areas and introduced a new cleaning rota and auditing system.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating, and it does not provide a full judgement of the home.
Infection testing and prevention
The home used regular testing and had signs, hand sanitisers and personal protective equipment available. Inspectors were assured about several parts of its infection-control arrangements.
“There were effective processes to minimise the risk to people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection.” from the report
Support during restrictions
People were helped to stay in contact with relatives through social media and telephone calls. A separate visiting area was also created.
“People were supported to maintain contact with their relatives in different ways including the use of social media and telephone calls” from the report
Action on cleanliness
The manager had arranged a deep clean and introduced a new cleaning rota and audit system. Inspectors found the home clean when they visited.
“We found the home was clean and with no malodours.” from the report
Masks were not always worn correctly
needs fixingInspectors found that some staff were not wearing masks correctly. The manager arranged refresher training and repeated the correct-use message in meetings and supervision.
“We found not all staff where wearing masks correctly.” from the report
Earlier cleanliness concerns
needs fixingThe inspection followed concerns about cleanliness and hygiene in the home. Action had been taken before the visit, but inspectors were still only somewhat assured about hygiene practices.
“We received concerns about the cleanliness and hygiene levels within the home.” from the report
- 01How do you check that all staff wear masks and other personal protective equipment correctly?
- 02What refresher training has been completed on putting on and removing personal protective equipment?
- 03How often is the new cleaning rota audited, and what happens if checks find a problem?
- 04How do you support people with behaviours that may challenge the service, and what training have staff received?
- 05What infection-control arrangements are currently in place for visitors and people moving into the home?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; it was not a full inspection of all five questions and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 December 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.
What inspectors found, December 2017
Whalley Road is rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but the home needed better leadership and fire safety checks.
Inspectors visited on 25 and 26 October 2017. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with five people, staff and managers, and checked care plans, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and safety records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, improved medicines management, suitable training and positive relationships. People were supported with health appointments, activities, independence and personal goals.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Fire alarm and emergency lighting checks had not been completed since 7 September 2017, and the fire risk assessment had not been reviewed since January 2016. Records did not clearly show what action was taken after some negative feedback.
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors observed positive relationships. People said staff were supportive and helped them achieve their goals.
“During the inspection we observed positive interactions between all staff and people who used the service.” from the report
Personalised care
People had individual assessments, support plans and activity planners. They were involved in reviewing their support as their needs changed.
“We saw that there was a system in place to ensure people who used the service were involved in reviewing and amending their support plans as their needs changed.” from the report
Staff skills and support
Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals. Inspectors found staff understood people's needs and legal rights.
“Records we reviewed showed that staff had received training to help ensure they were able to provide people with effective care and support.” from the report
Missed fire safety checks
seriousWeekly checks of the fire alarm and emergency lighting had not been completed for several weeks. The fire risk assessment had also not been reviewed since January 2016.
“This meant there was a risk that the safety of people living and working in the home would be compromised in the event of a fire.” from the report
Poor recording of responses to feedback
needs fixingThe home carried out satisfaction surveys, but records did not clearly show what action was taken after negative feedback.
“It was not clear from the analysis of the survey results what action had been taken.” from the report
- 01How are fire alarm and emergency lighting checks now completed and checked by managers?
- 02When was the fire risk assessment last reviewed, and what changes were made after that review?
- 03How are complaints and negative survey feedback recorded, followed up and checked for completion?
- 04How will the home make sure people feel safe when another person's behaviour is upsetting or frightening?
- 05What is the current agreed process for reducing distractions when staff administer medicines?
This was a full inspection covering all five rating areas; the first day was unannounced and inspectors reviewed a sample of records and spoke with five people. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 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 Whalley Road
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 January 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.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“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.”
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.