CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Cherington
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Targeted infection-control inspection; Cherington was not rated, and inspectors found good infection-control measures but a risk from some agency nurses working elsewhere.
Inspectors visited the home on 23 March 2021. The visit was announced and focused on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that visitors, new admissions, PPE, testing, shielding, social distancing, cleaning and the infection-control policy were being managed safely. Staff had received extra infection-control training.
The home had arranged a separate visiting bedroom, provided PPE and supported relatives to keep in touch through video calls and photos. Some agency nurses also worked in other settings, which inspectors said increased the risk of infection.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
Infection-control arrangements
Inspectors found clear infection-control procedures, and staff understood and followed them. Staff had also received additional infection-control training.
“The manager had clear procedures for infection and prevention control in place, which were understood and followed by staff.” from the report
Keeping families connected
The home used improved WiFi, video calls and photos to help people stay in touch with relatives during the pandemic.
“People had been supported to use technology to keep in touch with family and friends.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home had a separate bedroom for visits, provided PPE and trained staff to carry out and record lateral flow test results.
“To promote safe and comfortable visiting for people and their relatives, the registered manager had dedicated a bedroom as a visting space.” from the report
Communication with relatives
Relatives spoken to by inspectors were positive about the care and the communication they received during the pandemic.
“I think they have coped very well and communicated well, the staff are absolutely wonderful” from the report
Agency nurses working elsewhere
needs fixingSome agency nurses also worked in other settings. Inspectors said this increased the risk of infection, although the home was taking steps to agree exclusive contracts and recruit its own staff.
“Some agency nurses, however, also worked in different settings. This increased the risk of infection.” from the report
- 01How many agency nurses currently work in other settings, and what checks are made to reduce the infection risk?
- 02Have you agreed exclusive contracts for agency nurses since this inspection?
- 03What progress has been made in recruiting permanent nurses and other staff?
- 04How are lateral flow test results for visitors recorded and checked?
- 05Is the separate visiting bedroom still available, and how are visits currently arranged?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the home was inspected but not rated and no other areas were assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 April 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.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Cherington was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but leadership and recent improvements needed more time to prove they would last.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 March 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience observed care, spoke with people, visitors, staff and a healthcare professional, and reviewed care records, staff files and quality checks.
Inspectors found that people felt safe, were treated kindly and had their needs met. They found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, personalised care plans, activities, good food and support with healthcare.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement. However, the improvements had only started about four months earlier. Inspectors wanted to see that the new systems and standards would continue over time.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because the home’s improved management and quality systems had not yet been in place long enough to show they could be sustained.
Kind and respectful care
People and visitors described staff as kind and friendly. Inspectors observed positive relationships and respectful support.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Safe care and medicines
Risks were assessed and managed, the environment was clean, and medicines were administered and recorded safely.
“Registered nurses were trained in the administration of medicines. A registered nurse described how they completed the medicine administration records (MAR). We saw these were accurate.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, interests, communication needs and religious beliefs. Staff knew people well and supported individual choices.
“Detailed individual person-centred care plans had been developed, enabling staff to support people in a personalised way that was specific to their needs and preferences” from the report
Activities and daily life
People had access to a range of activities, including music, arts and crafts, exercise and entertainers. Inspectors also found that people could choose how they spent their day.
“We saw a varied range of activities on offer which included, music, arts and crafts, exercise and visits from external entertainers.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The provider had acted on earlier concerns about safety, care planning, dignity, activities and governance. The report says the legal requirements were now being met.
“At this inspection on 20 March 2019, improvements had been made, and the provider is now meeting the legal requirements.” from the report
Improvements not yet proven to last
needs fixingThe new management and quality systems had only been running for about four months. Inspectors wanted continued monitoring, particularly if more people were admitted or management arrangements changed.
“However, these improvements to systems and care would need to be sustained and monitored over time.” from the report
- 01How are you checking that the recent improvements to care, safety and quality monitoring are continuing?
- 02What arrangements are in place while the registered manager is on extended leave?
- 03How would staffing and quality checks change if more people moved into the home?
- 04How are people's individual activities, including one-to-one activities in rooms, recorded and reviewed?
- 05How are families involved when care plans are reviewed or people's needs change?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and following up concerns found at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 April 2019 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 Cherington
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2011.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.