What the CQC found at 42 Beeston Drive

Staff understood people's individual risks and used flexible plans to support independence while reducing the chance of harm.

“People were supported to take positive risks. Staff had a flexible approach to risk management which ensured good outcomes for people.” from the report

Staff knew people well and had built trusting relationships. Inspectors observed respectful and positive interactions.

“Staff spoke passionately and respectfully about people and the challenges they faced due to their complex needs.” from the report

Care records described people's preferences, routines, communication needs and risks. Staff could explain how they supported each person.

“Support records were personalised and contained details of likes, dislikes, personal preferences and preferred daily routines.” from the report

People were supported to make choices, spend time where they preferred and have their privacy respected.

“People's privacy and dignity was respected.” from the report

Audits did not always identify problems quickly or lead to action. Inspectors gave a recommendation to review the home's quality monitoring and auditing.

“The audits carried out were not timely or robust enough to identify the issues highlighted as part of this inspection.” from the report

The home did not have a registered manager when inspectors visited. Recruitment for a replacement was under way.

“At the time of the inspection the service did not have a registered manager.” from the report

Menus offered limited healthy choices, with little evidence of fruit and vegetables. Inspectors also found that weight gain had not been properly recognised or managed.

“Menus were not in place to ensure that a variety of options were provided.” from the report

Fire checks had been completed, but inspectors were concerned about the content of people's personal evacuation plans and asked for further assurance.

“We raised concern about the content of the PEEPS and escalated this matter to the Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service for advice and guidance.” from the report

Records did not show when, where or by whom creams and lotions were applied. Guidance for some as-needed medicines was also not detailed enough, although corrective steps were taken during the inspection.

“There was no information available to staff to help them to do this and no records to show when these medicines were applied, where and by whom.” from the report

People had activities at home and in the community, but relatives and professionals said the home was not always proactive in finding suitable community activities.

“Comment was made from relatives and professionals that the service was not always proactive in identifying appropriate community based activities.” from the report