CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at White Ash Brook
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was using appropriate infection prevention and control procedures. They were assured about PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing, visiting and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
White Ash Brook was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and safe arrangements for visitors.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 4 March 2021. It looked at how the home was prepared to prevent and control coronavirus infection.
Inspectors found that staff used personal protective equipment correctly. The home had PPE stations, safe disposal arrangements, enhanced cleaning and regular infection control checks.
Visitors were screened, asked to wash their hands, wear PPE and keep their distance. Visiting was restricted because of the national lockdown, but the home supported video and telephone calls and had installed a visiting pod.
PPE and staff training
Staff used suitable PPE, had been trained to put it on and take it off safely, and disposed of used PPE safely.
“Staff had received training on how to put on and take off PPE safely.” from the report
Cleaning and infection checks
Enhanced cleaning was taking place, with regular checks of cleanliness and infection control.
“Enhanced cleaning was being completed to ensure the home remained clean and the risk of cross infection was reduced.” from the report
Visitor arrangements
Visitors were screened and given hygiene and distancing instructions. The home also provided a visiting pod and helped people stay in touch by phone and video.
“The provider had installed a visiting 'pod' with a floor to ceiling screen.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are staff currently trained and checked on putting on and taking off PPE safely?
- 02How often are cleaning and infection control checks carried out, and what happens if a check finds a problem?
- 03What screening, PPE and distancing arrangements are currently required for visitors?
- 04How can residents keep in contact with family if an in-person visit is restricted?
- 05How would the home manage an infection outbreak or safely admit a new resident?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full assessment of the other four questions or an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 March 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, August 2019
White Ash Brook: Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some minor improvements still needed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 2 and 3 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, visitors, staff and managers. They also checked care records, medicines records, recruitment documents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received appropriate care and healthcare, and were supported by kind staff who respected their choices, privacy and dignity.
There were some minor issues. One lounge did not have call bells, some medicines records needed improvement, and inspectors noted odours and that dementia-friendly signs could be improved. The manager and provider had identified or started addressing these issues.
People felt safe
Inspectors found systems to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff assessed risks and took suitable action after accidents and incidents.
“The provider had systems to protect people from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind, helpful and respectful. Staff supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“People told us staff were kind and caring and treated them with respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, personalities, likes and dislikes. Staff offered choices and encouraged people to make everyday decisions.
“People's care plans were individual to the person and included information about their risks, needs, personalities, likes and dislikes.” from the report
Activities had improved
People said activities had improved after a new activities co-ordinator was employed. Inspectors saw people enjoying a coffee morning with visitors.
“The activities lady has made a big difference. She spends time with my [relative] on a one to one basis and he really enjoys the entertainment” from the report
Active quality checks
Managers completed regular checks covering medicines, infection control, equipment, fire safety, the environment and care records.
“The audits completed were effective in ensuring high levels of quality and safety were being maintained at the home.” from the report
Call bell missing in one lounge
needs fixingOne lounge did not have a call bell for people to summon staff. The provider obtained quotes after the inspection, and the manager said the lounge would be staffed in the meantime.
“We noted one lounge did not have call bells for people to summon staff from support.” from the report
Minor medicines records improvements
minorInspectors found some minor improvements were needed in medicines management. The manager had already identified these through audits and was taking action.
“Some minor improvements were needed, and we found the registered manager had identified these during recent audits and was taking action to address them.” from the report
Environmental issues
minorInspectors noticed a slight hallway odour and an odour in one person's room. The room issue was resolved quickly, and flooring replacement was planned for the hallway.
“There was a slight odour in one area of the hallway and the registered manager told us the flooring was due to be replaced as soon as the redecoration of that area had been completed.” from the report
Dementia signage could improve
minorSome dementia-friendly signs were present, but inspectors said more could be done. Further signage was planned after redecoration.
“We noted some dementia friendly signage throughout the home but felt this could be improved.” from the report
- 01Has the call bell now been fitted in the lounge, and how can people call for help there?
- 02What medicines recording improvements were identified, and how were they completed?
- 03Has the hallway flooring been replaced and have the odour issues been resolved?
- 04What dementia-friendly signs have been added since the inspection?
- 05How are activities planned for people who prefer one-to-one support or have dementia?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, and both the accommodation and personal care were looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 August 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 White Ash Brook
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 April 2015.
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.