Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Bloomcare

Garfield House Care Home

23 Ivor Street, Rochdale, OL11 3JA

Requires improvementpublished 24 January 2024, 2 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Liquid medicines, creams and gels were not always dated, and medicine temperatures were not always recorded daily. Thickening powder was missing for one person and records showed drinks were not always prepared correctly, increasing the risk of choking.
Effective?
Requires improvement
Staff competencies and training were generally good, but some staff had not received recent supervision. Food did not always match the menu, and inspectors recommended improving menu choices.
Caring?
Good
People told inspectors they were treated with dignity and respect. Staff supported people to maintain independence and respected their privacy.
Responsive?
Requires improvement
People were involved in planning their care, but preferences were not always met. People said showers could be four or five weeks apart, and inspectors recommended that showers be offered more regularly.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
The manager carried out audits, but these did not always identify or prevent problems. Records and emergency plans were sometimes inaccurate, and two incidents had not been reported to CQC.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, January 2024

Garfield House Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but medicines, records, staff supervision and choice needed improvement.

Inspectors visited on 5, 6 and 18 April 2023. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They also checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files, supervision records and management audits.

People were generally treated with dignity and respect. They felt safe, received support with healthcare and could have visitors. Staff training was mostly up to date, and the home worked within the rules about consent and best-interest decisions.

There were important shortfalls. Medicines and thickening powder were not always managed safely. Some risk information and records were inaccurate or late. Supervisions were overdue, food did not always match the menu, and people were not regularly offered showers in line with their preferences.

The overall rating and four of the five areas were Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good. This means the home provided some good care, but inspectors found inconsistent systems and an increased risk that people could be harmed.

What inspectors praised

  • Kind and respectful care

    People told inspectors they were treated with dignity and respect. Staff supported independence and privacy.

    “People were treated well, all the people we spoke to told us they were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report

  • People felt safe

    Safeguarding systems and staff training were in place. People said they felt safe at the home.

    “People told us they felt safe.” from the report

  • Healthcare support

    Staff supported people to access doctors, nurses and other health professionals when needed.

    “Staff supported people with their healthcare needs.” from the report

  • Training and competency checks

    Training completion was high in most areas, and staff competencies were checked for tasks such as medicines and moving people safely.

    “Staff had their competencies checked in areas such as medicines administration and moving and handling.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

  • Medicine and choking risks

    serious

    Medicine records and storage checks were incomplete. One person did not have thickening powder available, and drinks were not always prepared correctly, creating a choking risk.

    “The provider had failed to ensure systems and processes were in place and being followed to ensure that medicines were effectively managed.” from the report

  • Weak records and oversight

    serious

    Audits did not reliably maintain safety and quality. Some personal emergency evacuation plans were contradictory, and risk information for one new admission was missing.

    “The provider had failed to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service” from the report

  • Staff supervision

    serious

    A number of staff had not received recent supervision, and some had not had one since before the service registration was split.

    “We found a number of staff had not had a recent supervision, and some staff had not had a supervision since before the service had split its registration.” from the report

  • Showers and personal choice

    needs fixing

    People received regular body washes, but showers were not offered often enough for some people's preferences.

    “We recommend the provider ensures people are regularly offered showers in line with their preferences to ensure their personal care needs are being met.” from the report

  • Food choices

    needs fixing

    Meals did not always match the menu, and feedback about the food was mixed. The provider said supply problems had reduced menu options.

    “Meals being provided did not always match the menu.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How do you now check that medicines, creams, gels and thickening powder are available, correctly recorded and safely stored?
  2. 02What checks are made when someone is newly admitted to ensure bed-rail and other health and safety risks are identified straight away?
  3. 03How often will staff receive supervision, and how do you check that overdue supervisions are completed?
  4. 04How often are residents offered showers, and how are their personal preferences recorded and followed?
  5. 05How are residents involved when food supplies mean the planned menu has to change?

This was a full inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection of this newly registered home. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 January 2024 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 Garfield House Care Home

Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the service was registered.

  1. January 2024Requires improvementcurrent rating
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Garfield House Care Home →

  2. September 2022

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 September 2022.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

About live-in careHow PrimeCarers works
Same provider

Other services run by Wellington Healthcare (Arden) Ltd

11 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

Arden Court

Manchester, M30
Good
Nursing
Rated 6 years agocare home
Nearby

Other care homes near Rochdale

All in Rochdale

Manchester Road

Rochdale, OL11 · 0.2 km
Not yet rated
Residential
Not yet ratedcare home

Marland Court

Rochdale, OL11 · 0.7 km
Requires improvement
NursingDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home