- Care home
Birch Hall Care Centre
Assessment report published 24 September 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
This comprehensive assessment was undertaken between 29 June 2026 and 27 July 2026. We visited the service on 29 June, 30 June and 16 July 2026. The visit on the 29 June 2026 and 16 July 2026 was unannounced, and the 16 July 2026 was undertaken out of hours. The service is registered for accommodation for nursing and personal care and treatment of disease disorder and injury for up to 80 older people, younger adults, people living with dementia, mental health, sensory impairment, physical disability and people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
We have found 4 breaches of regulation at this service in relation to management of medicines, infection prevention and control and the management of risks. As well as person centred care, safe environment and good governance. In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and or appeals have been concluded and we have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
Systems were in place to investigate abuse allegations and lessons learned. Not all risks had been updated and concerns in relation to the safe management of the refurbishment was noted. Concerns were identified in a number of areas of the environment. Staff training was ongoing and recruitment procedures were in place, the provider confirmed they would review staff file risk assessment for long term staff with gaps in records. The management discussed the ongoing challenges in recruitment and their commitment to reduce agency use. Safe infection control practices were not in place. Action was taken to address shortfalls in the environment, but this was as a result of our findings. A new head housekeeper was in post to support improvements. The service did not make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.
Care records required improvements to ensure they all reflected the needs of people living at this service. Partners and management confirmed professionals were visiting the service and involved in people’s care. Staff knew how to maintain people’s dignity and providing good care and providing choice and supporting independence. Improvements were required to ensure the kitchen was clean and safe and people were supported effectively with meals of their choice. There was some evidence about how people were supported to improve health outcomes and hospital passports were developed to support the person in the event of an admission to hospital. The management team talked about how they planned to develop specific hospital passports to support people with a learning disability. Information to confirm appropriate capacity assessments and deprivation of liberty safeguards was not consistently in place.
Professionals were seen in the service on all days we visited, including out of hours. A range of information was on display and accessible to staff. Feedback was sought from people and staff, and you said, we did was on display to demonstrate what the service had done as a result of feedback. Systems were in place to act on concerns and complaints; some positive feedback was seen. People’s end of life needs were mostly considered but 1 persons care record did not reflect their current needs at the end of their life.
Feedback was being obtained but new surveys would benefit from details about what actions they would take as a result of the findings. Audits were ongoing both with the management and senior management, but these did not always demonstrate what actions would be taken as a result of the findings and they failed to identify the concerns we found at this assessment. People and staff were positive about the new manager but said that changes in the service could have been communicated better.
People's experience of this service
We undertook observations in the service and spoke with people and relatives.
Most people told us they felt safe in the service and staff understood people’s risk. However, some fedback concerns about the current arrangements due to the refurbishment. People and relatives were confident in the skills of the staff team, but this was not consistent with all of the feedback received. No one raised concerns about the cleanliness of the service. People told us staff supported them with their medicines.
Not all people could confirm they had been involved in the development of their care plans, but they told us staff discussed the needs with them. They said professionals were involved in their care.Some people liked the food provided to them, but not all. People and most relatives were happy with the care they received and their individual choices supported. We observed some kind and caring interactions with people, but this was not consistently the case. However, we saw not all communal areas had a consistent staff presence and some buzzers were not answered promptly. People told us staff supported them with their needs and were offered choices and relatives said they been involved in reviews. One person confirmed their choices at the end of their life had been discussed.
Not all people were positive about the activities provided, we saw some people enjoying activities, but others looked and told us they were bored. People knew how to raise concerns and were positive about the new manager. However, some people fedback that communication about changes could have been better.