Birkdale Residential Home

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 28 August 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Our on-site assessment took place on 4 August 2026. Birkdale Residential Home

is a care home providing accommodation for people requiring nursing care, older adults and

people with a diagnosis of dementia. The service was registered to support a maximum of 29 people. At the time of this assessment 21 people were living at the service. The service was supporting people with a range of complex needs, including dementia, diabetes, epilepsy requiring time-specific medication, modified diets and palliative care needs.

This inspection was carried out to follow up on action we told the provider to take at the last assessment when we found they were in breach of the legal regulation relating to good governance. Improvements were found at this inspection, and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulation.

Whilst significant improvements had been made, some areas required further development. Medicines management had improved. However, there were still some shortfalls identified in the recording of medicines and the storage of medicines.

Where staff were supporting people with personal care we found people’s dignity was not always maintained.

We identified some CQC notifiable incidents had not been logged or recorded with CQC.

There was clear evidence the provider had invested significantly in the service since the previous inspection. Improvements were seen in governance systems, auditing processes, environmental maintenance, staffing oversight and administrative support.

Management demonstrated good engagement with external health and social care professionals to ensure people's needs were met.

Care plans were detailed, person-centred and regularly reviewed. Records showed proactive involvement from healthcare professionals and responsive actions following incidents, changes in health needs and behavioural concerns.

People received care and support from a staff team who knew them well and understood their individual needs, preferences and routines. Care plans contained detailed person-centred information, including people's life histories, likes, dislikes and preferred ways of receiving support.

Feedback from relatives was overwhelmingly positive. One relative told inspectors, "I know [relative] is 100% safe here. I have no worries and I couldn't be happier," whilst another described the staff as "fantastic" and said they were kept fully informed about their family member's wellbeing and activities.

During the assessment, we observed several positive interactions between staff and people living at the home. Staff spoke kindly, offered reassurance and demonstrated familiarity with people's individual needs and preferences.

People's healthcare needs were monitored, and support was sought from relevant professionals when required. Records evidenced ongoing involvement from healthcare services to support people with dementia, mobility needs, dietary requirements, anxiety, behavioural distress and palliative care needs.

Whilst feedback about the service was positive overall, some observations identified opportunities to further improve people's experience. These included ensuring people received timely support when requesting assistance, protecting people's dignity during personal care and enhancing supervision and engagement within communal areas, particularly during mealtimes.

The service had made good progress since the previous inspection and demonstrated a clear commitment to continuous improvement, with further work needed to embed and sustain these changes.