CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Anderson Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood their needs. Inspectors found some inconsistency in risk information and unclear guidance for some medicines used when needed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. Staff had training and supervision, and the home supported people's health, diet, choices and independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in this inspection. Inspectors observed respectful, positive relationships and person-centred support.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in this inspection. Inspectors found that activities and support were tailored to people's individual needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had visible management, regular audits and systems to monitor care and records. Families and staff were given opportunities to share their views.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Anderson Close rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some records needing clearer and more consistent information.
Inspectors visited on 7 and 12 December 2023. They spoke with three people living in the home, two family members and four staff. They reviewed care records, staff recruitment files, policies and checks on how the home was run.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Good. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff knew them well, and people were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities and community life.
There were some recording issues. Risk assessments did not always give consistent information about ways to reduce distress. Guidance for some medicines used when needed was not always clear, although the manager acted on this during the inspection. Records did not always show the involvement of family members or advocates in decisions where a person lacked capacity.
The Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection to Good. Earlier recommendations about keeping risk reviews together and improving mental capacity records had been acted on.
Staff knew people well
The home had a consistent staff team. Staff could recognise when people were distressed and used appropriate strategies to reduce further distress.
“Staff knew the people they supported well and were able to identify when a person was distressed” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, prepare food and drinks, join activities and stay involved in their local community.
“Independence was promoted to prevent social isolation, and to ensure people being supported were integrated into the local community.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, culture, religion and lifestyle choices. Staff worked with health and social care professionals when needed.
“Care plans were personalised and included involvement from other professionals.” from the report
Good management and family contact
The manager had oversight of the service, completed audits and supported staff. Families were actively involved and kept updated about their relative's care.
“Family members were actively involved in their loved one's care.” from the report
Risk information was not always consistent
needs fixingRisk assessments were updated regularly, but information about ways to reduce distress did not always match across records. Inspectors recommended that the provider review this.
“Individual risks were assessed and updated regularly, however there was inconsistency in information about de-escalation strategies.” from the report
Some medicine guidance was unclear
needs fixingInstructions were not always clear for medicines given when needed, such as pain relief. The manager acted on the recommendation during the first inspection day.
“There was not always clear guidance on how to administer medicine to those people who received as and when required medicines” from the report
Records did not always show family or advocate involvement
needs fixingWhere a person was assessed as unable to make a decision, records did not always show that family members or advocates had been involved. The manager said records would be updated.
“records did not always evidence involvement of advocates or family member when a person was assessed as lacking capacity.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure de-escalation strategies are recorded consistently in every risk assessment?
- 02How do you decide when to give medicines used when needed, and where is the guidance recorded?
- 03How do you record the involvement of family members or advocates when a person cannot make a decision themselves?
- 04How will you check that staff have read and understood updates to care plans?
- 05How are families kept updated about their relative's care and activities?
This inspection covered Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not separately rated, and the report says the inspection was prompted by a review of information held about the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 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.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Targeted inspection, not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 safety measures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 10 January 2022. The CQC gave the home 24 hours' notice. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected people.
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely, supported testing, followed shielding and social distancing rules, and kept its infection control policy up to date. They also found that visits were being supported in line with current guidance.
The provider supplied relatives with lateral flow tests before visits. Inspectors also observed good practice when a resident tested positive, to reduce risks to other residents. The service was meeting the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas of care.
Support for visiting relatives
The provider supplied lateral flow tests so relatives could test at home before visits and avoid waiting outside in the cold.
“The provider was assisting relatives by supplying lateral flow tests to facilitate testing at home prior to each visit” from the report
Managing a positive COVID-19 case
Inspectors saw good practice to reduce infection risks to other residents when one resident tested positive.
“Where a resident had tested positive for Covid-19 we observed good practice to mitigate risks for the other residents.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering protective equipment, testing, hygiene, visiting and infection outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Vaccination requirement
The home was meeting the requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
“The service was meeting the requirement to ensure non-exempt staff and visiting professionals were vaccinated against COVID-19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing visits, including testing requirements and support for relatives?
- 02What arrangements are now in place to manage infection outbreaks?
- 03How do you currently manage staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 or other absences?
- 04How do you make sure staff and visiting professionals meet the current vaccination or exemption requirements?
- 05When was the home last assessed for the other areas of care that this inspection did not cover?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the home was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 January 2022 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 Anderson Close
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 November 2010.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Warrington
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. 90 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.