During an assessment under our new approach
Our view of the service
About the service
The service is a residential care home located in Bury. There were 24 people using the service at the time of the assessment.
Who the service is for
The service provides accommodation and support to older people, some of whom live with dementia.
Key findingsWe carried out this assessment between 6 and 22 October 2026.
This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
The service had stable and consistent management. The registered manager was clear about their role and responsibilities. Incidents or events were reported to the CQC and local authority as required. Staff spoken with were aware of the safeguarding procedures and were confident the registered manager would respond to any issues or concerns. One staff member told us, “Amazing manager, very hands on.”
Systems were in place to monitor and review the service, this included seeking feedback from people, their relatives and staff. The provider had completed a quality assurance review which found the home was generally clean, well maintained and appropriately managed. Minor areas for improvement had been identified. The registered manager had plans in place to address these areas. This included accurate and complete care records, activities involvement, environment and staff training.
An electronic care planning system had been introduced. The registered manager acknowledged updates in people’s care and support needed to be clearly reflected throughout the plan. Monitoring records were completed where potential risks had been identified. Whilst these were recorded, information was not provided in one concise record, helping to quickly identify any concerns. Opportunities to promote people’s and relatives’ involvement were also being expanded upon to include the use of social media and formal reviews of people’s care.
People received their medication as prescribed. Staff responsible for the administration of medication had undertaken relevant training and had their competency assessed to check their practice was safe. People had access to health and social care professionals when needed. A weekly visit was undertaken by a local GP, which meant changes in health care needs could be quickly assessed, treated and monitored. Appropriate referrals were also made where additional support and advice was required. This included the community nursing team, speech and language therapists and social workers.
Suitable arrangements were in place with regards to health and safety checks and the management of infection control. The service had achieved a food hygiene rating of 5* and had been assessed as compliant following an audit by local authority Infection Control team.
During our visit we noted a malodour in one area of the home. The registered manager advised that this was being addressed and that alternative flooring was to be fitted. Recent work had been undertaken to upgrade the lift; new windows had been fitted and a new roof. Further work was planned to enhance the standard of accommodation provided.
Safe recruitment processes were in place, and staffing levels were regularly reviewed to ensure people’s assessed needs were met. Following a recent recruitment drive, all vacancies had been filled. A programme of training, supervision and support was provided. One staff member had facilitated a staff meeting as part of an observation required for their health and social care course. The registered manager told us team meetings were being scheduled at different times to encourage better attendance by both day and night staff. A new programme of training had been introduced. Staff were in the process of completing training updates. Staff spoken with felt there was ‘great teamwork’ and they received the training and support needed for their role. We were told, “One big team, good communication and person-centred care.”
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities and ensured lawful authorisations were in place, where necessary. Staff would benefit from further training to develop their knowledge and understanding of how to uphold people’s human rights.
The service worked well with other agencies. The local authority told us their review of the service was good overall. A small number of minor issues had been identified, which were actioned by the registered manager. Survey results from people, relatives and staff had also been positive. The registered manager also worked closely with a council-funded workforce development and recruitment service, which helped care providers recruit, upskill, and retain staff. The registered manager was actively involved in the steering group, had booked further training and was supporting projects to promote student placements and careers in social care.