CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Applecroft Residential Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Applecroft Residential Care Home is rated Requires Improvement; care was good in four areas, but quality checks and oversight were not reliable enough.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 18 and 19 November 2019. They spoke with 13 people, two relatives, six staff and two visiting professionals. They reviewed care records, staff files, training, medicines, audits and the building.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, kind care, personalised support and help with health needs and activities.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Quality checks, environmental checks and analysis of accidents were not always completed in a structured or timely way. The provider was still in breach of Regulation 17, as it had been at the previous inspection.
The overall rating means the home was not consistently meeting the standard needed for a Good service. The provider had an improvement plan, and CQC said it would monitor progress and return for another inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors observed positive, compassionate interactions and found that privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“We observed kind and caring interaction between staff, the people living at the home and visitors.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were securely stored and records of administration were accurate. Staff had clear guidance for medicines given when needed.
“Medicines were securely stored in a suitable environment and an accurate record of administration was being recorded.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's individual needs, preferences and wishes. Staff knew people well and supported their choices.
“People's care plans and risk assessments were personalised according to their individual needs and reflected the person's preferences and wishes.” from the report
Support from other professionals
The home worked with doctors, district nurses and other professionals. Advice was used to update care plans and support people's health needs.
“Records confirmed the registered manager worked closely with other professionals such as doctors and district nurses to meet people's individual health care needs.” from the report
Weak quality oversight
seriousChecks and audits were not always structured or completed regularly. This meant potential hazards might not be identified quickly, and inspectors found this was a continued breach of Regulation 17.
“This was a continued breach of regulation 17 (Good Governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
Laundry arrangements
needs fixingThe laundry was small, untidy and disorganised. There was no clear route separating dirty and clean laundry, and bags containing soiled laundry had not been secured. Immediate steps were taken to reduce the risk while improvements were planned.
“There was no clear dirty to clean path being used at the time and red bags being used for soiled laundry had not been secured.” from the report
Accident reviews were delayed
needs fixingThe manager monitored accidents and incidents, but analysis was not always completed promptly. This could delay sharing lessons with everyone who might be at risk.
“We noted that this was not always done in a timely way and this is discussed further in the well led section of the report.” from the report
No recent residents' meetings
minorPeople and families were involved in individual care reviews, but there had been no recent formal meetings for residents and relatives to discuss the quality of the service.
“There had been no recent meetings for residents and relatives to have formal discussions about the quality of the service” from the report
- 01What has been done since the inspection to make sure all environmental and safety checks happen regularly?
- 02How are accident and incident reviews now completed promptly, and how are lessons shared with staff?
- 03What changes have been made to the laundry to keep dirty and clean laundry separate and secure soiled items?
- 04How are the provider and manager making sure the Regulation 17 breach has been fully addressed?
- 05When will residents' and relatives' meetings restart so families can discuss the quality of the service?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care, the premises, records, staff, management systems and feedback from people, relatives and professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 January 2020 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, September 2018
Applecroft Residential Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but repeated problems with safety records and management checks.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 7 and 13 August 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care, checked the building and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and other documents.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People and relatives spoke positively about the staff, food, activities and care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable support with decisions and care that responded to people's needs.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led, giving an overall rating of Requires Improvement. Inspectors found weak quality checks, disorganised records, incomplete follow-up after incidents and outstanding fire safety actions. This was the fourth consecutive overall Requires Improvement rating, and the provider remained in breach of Regulation 17 on good governance.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives were positive about the staff. Inspectors saw staff being patient, listening to people and respecting their privacy and dignity.
“Throughout the inspection, we observed positive interactions between staff and the people living in the home.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors saw call bells answered in good time and staff had time to talk with people as well as complete their tasks.
“There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of the people living in the home.” from the report
Support with decisions
The home recorded mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions. Staff asked for consent and explained what they intended to do.
“The service was working within the principles of the MCA, and any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty were being met.” from the report
Responsive care
Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and histories. Care plans were reviewed, and the manager was improving them to make them more personal.
“Comments from people and their relatives confirmed that the care they received was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Food and mealtime choices
People and relatives spoke positively about the food. People were offered choices, different portion sizes and different places to eat.
“We carried out an observation during meal times and saw different portion sizes were offered and people were offered different choices.” from the report
Weak overall checks
seriousThe provider's systems did not reliably identify or resolve problems. Records were disorganised and the home could not always show what action had been taken.
“The provider did not have effective systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Fire safety actions
seriousA fire risk assessment identified some actions as needing immediate attention. At the inspection, these actions were still outstanding and progress could not be evidenced.
“These tasks remained outstanding and the manager was unable to provide documentation to show what progress had been made.” from the report
Follow-up after safeguarding incidents
needs fixingSafeguarding incidents were referred appropriately, but not all agreed actions were completed. This meant opportunities to learn and prevent future problems were missed.
“However, we noted that not all actions that had been agreed following one safeguarding incident had been completed by the manager.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager at the time of the inspection. The current manager had started in May 2018 and was applying to register.
“There was no registered manager in place at the time of our inspection.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure actions from safeguarding incidents are completed and recorded?
- 02How are you now checking medication records, PRN guidance, controlled drug records and medication storage temperatures?
- 03What progress has been made on the immediate actions in the fire risk assessment?
- 04Who is responsible for checking that audits lead to completed actions, and how can we see the evidence?
- 05Has the current manager now become the registered manager, or when is the application expected to be decided?
This was an unannounced inspection of the home across all five CQC questions; inspectors noted that a local authority investigation into specific incidents was taking place, but this inspection did not examine those incidents. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 September 2018 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 Applecroft Residential Care Home
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- January 2020Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Applecroft Residential Care Home →
- September 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Applecroft Residential Care Home →
- August 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2014Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 December 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 Cheshire East
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. 88 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.”
“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.