CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cheney House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including testing, protective equipment, visiting, cleaning and vaccination requirements. Staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 were discussed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed or rated in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed or rated in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed or rated in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This area was not assessed or rated in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control, with cleaning records for shared bathrooms discussed.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 20 January 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, and asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed infection risks well. They found robust testing, effective use of protective equipment, regular hand cleaning, safe visiting arrangements and a clean environment.
The home supported people to go out and receive visitors while following safety procedures. Inspectors discussed keeping evidence that shared bathrooms had been cleaned after use, and signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five usual areas.
Infection control
Staff followed infection prevention procedures, including using protective equipment and washing and sanitising their hands regularly.
“Staff understood and followed robust infection prevention and control procedures.” from the report
Testing and visiting
People, staff and visitors followed testing arrangements. The home supported visits from family and friends while using safety procedures.
“People were supported to visit friends and family and receive visitors in their home.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic, with regular cleaning of high-contact areas and sufficient protective equipment available.
“The environment was clean and hygienic, staff followed cleaning schedules which included regular cleaning of high contact areas” from the report
Safe activities
People were supported to take part in activities and go out while staying as safe as possible.
“People were supported to pursue activities and go out whilst staying as safe as possible.” from the report
Cleaning evidence
minorInspectors discussed the need for cleaning schedules to show that shared bathrooms had been cleaned after use.
“We discussed cleaning schedules to evidence cleaning of shared bathrooms after use.” from the report
Further development
minorThe provider was signposted to resources to develop its approach. The report does not say that this led to a breach or enforcement action.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01How do you now record cleaning of shared bathrooms after use?
- 02What measures are in place to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures?
- 03How do you check that visitors follow testing and infection prevention procedures?
- 04What changes did you make after being signposted to resources to develop your approach?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for the other four key questions or an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 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.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Cheney House was inspected but not rated; infection control measures were mostly in place, but practice was not yet consistent.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 13 November 2020. It was a targeted inspection during the coronavirus outbreak, focused on infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found enough personal protective equipment, regular testing, increased cleaning and arrangements for safe admissions and visits. Staff were seen using protective equipment correctly.
Inspectors were assured about most infection control arrangements. However, they were not assured that these practices had become consistent across all staff, including agency staff. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Protective equipment
The home had sufficient stocks of masks, gloves, aprons, hand sanitiser and visors.
“Sufficient stocks of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) were in place including masks, gloves, aprons, hand sanitiser and visors.” from the report
Testing
People living at the home and staff were tested regularly to identify possible coronavirus infections.
“People living in the service and staff were being tested regularly.” from the report
Cleaning and hygiene
Cleaning had been increased, including for frequently touched surfaces, and infection control policies had been reviewed.
“Cleaning schedules had been increased to ensure high touch surfaces were cleaned regularly and additional cleaning to maintain good hygiene standards.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had received extra training on putting on and removing PPE, and inspectors saw PPE being used correctly.
“We saw staff wearing PPE appropriately on the day of the inspection.” from the report
Consistency of infection control
needs fixingInspectors found that infection prevention and control practices had not yet become established across the whole staff team. This included agency staff.
“We were not assured that the practices relating to infection prevention and control had been embedded into the service.” from the report
Further improvements needed
needs fixingThe provider had made immediate changes after advice from the public health infection control team, but more improvement was still needed.
“The provider had made some immediate changes following a visit from Public Health Community Infection Prevention Control Team, however, there was still improvements to be made” from the report
- 01How do you check that agency staff follow the same infection control procedures as permanent staff?
- 02What changes were made after the visit from the Public Health Community Infection Prevention Control Team?
- 03How do you check that PPE is put on and removed correctly by every member of staff?
- 04How often are high-touch surfaces cleaned, and how do you record these checks?
- 05What arrangements are currently in place for safe visits to the home?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus outbreak; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 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 Cheney House
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 August 2012.
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 West Northamptonshire
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 £1,280 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
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.