CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Acorn Manor Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm overall, and infection controls, recruitment and risk assessments were mostly suitable. Inspectors found an inaccurate antibiotic record and an environmental risk involving a hot radiator.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so no current rating is given in the report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so no current rating is given in the report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so no current rating is given in the report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was consistently managed overall, with many audits, an open-door approach and regular communication with residents and relatives. However, some environmental and activity issues had not been identified through the home's checks.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Acorn Manor Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind care and better management, but identified medication, environmental and activity concerns.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 17 November 2022. They spoke with five residents and six staff, reviewed care, risk and medication records, and checked staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found that people were relaxed and felt safe, staff were respectful, medicines were mostly managed safely, and infection controls were suitable.
There were still some weaknesses. One antibiotic record did not match the amount received. A very hot radiator was found in a bathroom, some refurbishment needs were missing from the plan, and planned activities were not carried out during the visit.
The last rating, published in October 2019, was Requires Improvement. The report says this inspection changed the overall rating, and the Safe and Well-led ratings, to Good. The other key-question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection.
Kind and respectful staff
People were positive about the support they received. Inspectors saw staff interacting with people in a helpful and respectful way.
“People were complimentary about the support they received.” from the report
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and those who did not give their views appeared relaxed with staff.
“People told us, "I feel safe here" and staff are really nice".” from the report
Open management
The management team was accessible to residents. Newsletters, meetings and surveys were used to keep people and relatives involved and informed.
“Regular newsletters were made available to both people and their relatives, keeping them up to date with events and news.” from the report
Learning from falls
The home reviewed falls and introduced measures such as sensor mats and changes to staff supervision routines.
“Falls meetings were held which included a review of those who had experienced falls and subsequent action to take to enable these to be minimised.” from the report
Medication records
needs fixingOne antibiotic record showed seven items signed for even though six had been received. Inspectors said this had not caused harm, but they informed the manager.
“Medication recording in respect of antibiotics was not always accurate.” from the report
Environmental safety
needs fixingA radiator in a refurbished bathroom was very hot to touch. The provider later supplied evidence of safeguards and said the rooms were kept locked, but the risk had not initially been identified.
“A radiator in one bathroom was very hot to the touch.” from the report
Activities were inconsistent
minorThe activities coordinator had to help in the kitchen because of unavoidable staffing problems. As a result, planned activities were not consistently provided.
“Advertised activities, as a result were inconsistent with chair-based exercise set up and then not carried out.” from the report
Refurbishment plan was incomplete
minorThe home had made significant improvements, but two ground-floor toilets needing redecoration or refurbishment were not included in the plan.
“A refurbishment plan was made available to us yet this did not include two toilets on the ground floor that were in need of redecoration/ refurbishment.” from the report
- 01How do you now check antibiotic quantities and medication records so that they match what has been received and given?
- 02What safeguards are in place to prevent people accessing the bathroom with the hot radiator?
- 03Have the two ground-floor toilets been added to the refurbishment plan, and what work is planned?
- 04How are activities maintained when the activities coordinator is needed to cover other staffing duties?
- 05How do you keep records of one-to-one support secure and prevent loose daily records being misplaced?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the Effective, Caring and Responsive ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 July 2023 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.
What inspectors found, November 2021
Acorn Manor Residential Home was rated Requires Improvement; care had improved and it had left special measures, but cleanliness, equipment safety and management checks still needed attention.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 18 August, 24 August and 2 September 2021. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home had improved since its previous Inadequate rating. Inspectors found safer medicines systems, better risk assessments, improved infection control arrangements, more person-centred care plans and kind, respectful staff interactions.
However, some bedrooms and bathrooms were not clean or tidy during the visit. An unsafe bed rail was removed, and a faulty kitchen refrigerator had not yet been confirmed as replaced. Cleaning records were not always accurate, and management checks had missed these problems.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. It was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. It had previously been in special measures, but inspectors found enough improvement for it to leave special measures and said there were no current regulatory breaches.
Safer medicines
Medicines were managed safely, with suitable records, staff competency checks and regular audits.
“People received their medicines when needed and staff had received training and competency checks to confirm they administered medicines safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive and caring interactions. People were supported with dignity, privacy and reassurance.
“Staff interactions with people were respectful, patient and positive.” from the report
Better person-centred planning
Care plans had been improved and moved to a digital system that recorded people's changing needs and the support they received.
“Care plans had been transferred to a digital system enabling care plans to be amended easily and were supported by an ongoing commentary of all interactions staff had with each person.” from the report
Improved leadership oversight
The provider had increased its involvement, and oversight of risks, accidents, incidents and care planning was more accurate than at the previous inspection.
“Oversight of accidents, incidents and care planning were now more accurate and demonstrated better governance.” from the report
Cleanliness was inconsistent
needs fixingSome bedrooms, bathrooms and toilets were cluttered or unclean. Cleaning records said areas had been cleaned when inspectors found that this was not the case.
“Records indicated that these areas had been cleaned yet this did not reflect our observations.” from the report
Unsafe equipment and faulty appliance
seriousAn unsafe and loose bed rail was removed. A faulty refrigerator did not guarantee safe food storage, and replacement had not been confirmed to inspectors.
“A refrigerator in the kitchen was faulty and did not guarantee optimum temperature for safe food storage.” from the report
Management checks missed problems
needs fixingQuality assurance systems had improved but did not identify the hygiene and safety issues found during the inspection. Inspectors said improvements needed to continue for a period of time.
“Internal quality assurance systems had improved, however, these had not detected the hygiene and safety issues that we identified.” from the report
Limited domestic staffing
needs fixingThere was not enough domestic cover during the visit to maintain hygiene throughout the building. The report says a new domestic worker was recruited after the visit.
“There were not sufficient domestic staff on duty at the time of our visit to maintain hygiene standards throughout the building.” from the report
Activities were limited on the visit day
minorActivities were limited on the day inspectors visited, although later records showed more structured activities and an activities co-ordinator had been employed.
“Activities on the day of our visit were limited.” from the report
- 01Has the faulty kitchen refrigerator now been replaced, and how are food storage temperatures checked?
- 02What daily checks now make sure bedrooms, bathrooms and toilets are clean and free from clutter?
- 03How is the home checking that cleaning records accurately reflect the work completed?
- 04How many domestic staff are now available, including cover for sickness and absence?
- 05How will managers show that the improved quality and safety systems are continuing to work?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; the report also compares the findings with the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 November 2021 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 Acorn Manor Residential Home
6 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Acorn Manor Residential Home →
- November 2021Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Acorn Manor Residential Home →
- February 2021InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2019Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 July 2020.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
84 live-in carers within about an hour of Cheshire West and Chester
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.