Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Borough Care

Silverdale

20 Bents Avenue, Bredbury, Stockport, SK6 2LF

Goodpublished 25 January 2024, 2 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
People felt safe, staff were suitably recruited, risks were assessed and medicines were given as prescribed. However, inspectors found times when communal areas were left without nearby staff and recommended a review of staffing levels.
Effective?
Good
People's needs were assessed, staff were trained and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare. Capacity assessments were not always decision-specific or completed in line with the Mental Capacity Act.
Caring?
Good
Staff were kind, knew people well and respected privacy, dignity and independence. People and families were involved in decisions, although records did not always show this clearly.
Responsive?
Good
Care plans covered people's needs and communication support, and people could take part in activities and trips. The level of personal detail in care plans varied, including for daily routines and end-of-life care.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team. However, audits and reviews did not always identify or address weaknesses in staffing, capacity assessments, care records and some aspects of care.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, January 2024

Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but staffing and management checks need improvement.

This was an unannounced inspection on 4 and 11 December 2023. Inspectors observed care, checked the building and staffing, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.

People were generally safe and well cared for. The home was clean, medicines were given as prescribed, staff were kind, and people received personalised support, activities and help with food, drink and healthcare.

The main weaknesses were that staffing was sometimes too low to provide prompt support, capacity assessments were not always completed properly, and management checks did not always identify these problems. Safe, effective, caring and responsive care were rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement, which lowered the overall picture but the overall rating remained Good.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful staff

    Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and respecting their privacy, dignity and independence.

    Staff were kind and caring and knew the people they supported well.from the report
  • Clean environment

    The home was clean and tidy. Laundry arrangements and staff use of protective equipment helped reduce infection risks.

    The service was clean and tidy, and any malodours were quickly addressed by a team of domestic cleaning staff who were busy throughout the day.from the report
  • Activities and relationships

    People could join group activities, individual sessions, trips out and community events. Relatives' meetings were also used to gather ideas.

    People enjoyed the activities and commented, "I love the trips out.from the report
  • Support with health and nutrition

    People were helped to eat and drink, and specialist advice was sought when needed. Staff supported people to access healthcare services.

    People were supported to access health care services as needed.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Staffing and oversight

    needs fixing

    There were times when staff were difficult to find and people in communal areas might not have had prompt support. Inspectors recommended a review of staffing levels and the building layout.

    There were times when it was difficult to find staff, and groups of people were left in communal areas with no staff near to provide support, should it be required quickly.from the report
  • Capacity assessments

    needs fixing

    Records did not always show that assessments of people's ability to make specific decisions followed the required process. Inspectors recommended stronger oversight and staff support in this area.

    However, records did not demonstrate the capacity assessments were completed in line with the requirements of MCA and were decision specific.from the report
  • Management checks

    needs fixing

    Audits and reviews were in place but did not always identify weaknesses found during the inspection. This included care records, staffing and capacity assessments.

    However, it was not clear that these were suitably robust to ensure any shortfalls, such as those identified at this inspection in relation to staffing, mental capacity assessment and recording keeping, were suitably robust.from the report
  • Some care records lacked detail

    minor

    Some care plans did not contain enough personal detail about routines, involvement in reviews or end-of-life wishes. Inspectors also said aspects of oral care needed improvement.

    The quality of different parts of people's care plan did vary with some containing a lot of personalised detail and some lacking detailfrom the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have been made to staffing levels and staff allocation in communal areas?
  2. 02How are capacity assessments now checked to make sure they are specific to each decision?
  3. 03How do managers make sure care plans are reviewed promptly after falls or other changes in risk?
  4. 04How are oral care needs recorded, delivered and checked?
  5. 05How are residents and relatives involved in reviewing daily routines and end-of-life care plans?

This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good, published on 18 October 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 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 Silverdale

4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. January 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Silverdale

  2. October 2018Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. August 2016Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. March 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. November 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 January 2011.

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.

Same provider

Other services run by Borough Care Ltd

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

Bamford Close

Stockport, SK3
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 7 years agocare home

Bruce Lodge

Stockport, SK1
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home

Bryn Haven

Stockport, SK5
Requires improvement
ResidentialDementia
Rated 2 years agocare home

Cawood House

Stockport, SK5
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 7 years agocare home

Lisburne Court

Stockport, SK2
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 5 years agocare home

Meadway Court

Stockport, SK7
Requires improvement
ResidentialDementia
Rated last monthcare home
Nearby

Other care homes near Stockport

Berrycroft Manor

Stockport, SK6 · 0.2 km
Requires improvement
ResidentialDementia
Rated 7 months agocare home

Appleton Manor

Manchester, SK6 · 1.8 km
Good
NursingDementia
Rated 6 years agocare home

Appleton Lodge

Manchester, SK6 · 1.8 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 7 years agocare home

Brinnington Hall

Stockport, SK5 · 2.0 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home

Bryn Haven

Stockport, SK5 · 2.1 km
Requires improvement
ResidentialDementia
Rated 2 years agocare home