CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Borough Care
Silverdale
20 Bents Avenue, Bredbury, Stockport, SK6 2LF
Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.
- 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.
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.
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
Staffing and oversight
needs fixingThere 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 fixingRecords 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 fixingAudits 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
minorSome 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 detail” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to staffing levels and staff allocation in communal areas?
- 02How are capacity assessments now checked to make sure they are specific to each decision?
- 03How do managers make sure care plans are reviewed promptly after falls or other changes in risk?
- 04How are oral care needs recorded, delivered and checked?
- 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.
Every inspection of Silverdale
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- 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.
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.
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.