CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cherre Residential Care
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and staff understood individual risks. However, some areas were not fully clean and the report noted a potential scalding risk from hot radiators, which the provider said it had addressed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. Staff had training, but they did not always have enough information about people's specific health conditions and were not fully aware of DoLS conditions.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were generally treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in choices about food, activities and their care, although two people raised concerns about an unfriendly approach on particular shifts.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The home understood people's communication needs, preferences and routines. Activities were provided and complaints were dealt with, but some accessible information and future care wishes were not yet fully recorded.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- There was a registered manager and people and relatives felt able to speak openly with management. However, audits had not found problems with cleanliness and temperature, and action plans did not show how some feedback had been addressed.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but the home was not consistently warm, clean or well-led.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, the provider, the acting manager and staff. They also observed care and checked care records, staff files, medicine records and management records.
People were generally safe, treated kindly and supported in a personalised way. Staff understood people's risks, medicines were managed safely, people had choices about food and activities, and healthcare needs were followed up.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because audits had missed problems with cleanliness and heating, and the home did not show clearly how feedback had been acted on.
People were protected from harm
Staff knew how to recognise abuse, manage individual risks and respond when people became anxious or distressed. Staffing levels were observed to be enough to keep people safe and provide individual support.
“We observed staffing levels were high enough for staff to keep people safe and provide individual support when required.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, communication methods, likes and dislikes. Staff knew people well and supported their routines and choices.
“Staff members knew people's likes and dislikes and how important routines were to them.” from the report
Choice and independence
People chose food, music and activities, and were supported to go out and remain independent where possible. Relatives were involved in care decisions.
“People were helped to choose what they ate and what they wanted to do.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed people being treated with friendliness and respect. People said their privacy and dignity were respected.
“We observed people being treated with friendliness and respect by staff members.” from the report
Cleanliness was not consistent
needs fixingA bathroom had ingrained staining, and inspectors found tissue on some communal floors and dust on some surfaces. The provider accepted this and said it had followed the issue up with staff.
“The service was clean in most areas but not in all.” from the report
Some areas were cold
needs fixingInspectors found the front lounge, office and some bedrooms were cold. The provider said this was linked to boiler pressure and contacted a plumber after the inspection.
“We found areas of the home to be cold including the front lounge, the office and some people's bedrooms.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe home's audits did not identify cleanliness and temperature issues. This contributed to the Requires Improvement rating for well-led.
“However, audits had not identified issues such as whether all areas of the premises were clean and maintained at a comfortable temperature throughout.” from the report
- 01What has been done to keep all bedrooms and communal areas warm, and how is this checked now?
- 02What cleaning checks are carried out, and how do managers make sure missed areas are corrected?
- 03How are suggestions from people and relatives recorded, given a timescale and followed up?
- 04What information will staff receive about people's specific health conditions and DoLS responsibilities?
- 05How are people's future care and funeral wishes recorded in their care plans?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 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.
What inspectors found, August 2016
Cherre Residential Care was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few records and contingency arrangements needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 August 2016. One inspector spoke with six people living at the home, four staff, managers and the provider. They also reviewed three care plans, medicines records and other service records.
The home supported nine people, although it could support up to 14. People had learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorder or mental health needs. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, safe medicines administration and good support for people's health needs.
People were treated with respect and had positive relationships with staff. Their care was personalised. They were involved in decisions, meals and activities such as shopping, swimming, walks and cooking.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspection found the service met the expected standard in each area at that time, although some smaller issues were identified.
Enough staff
Staffing levels reflected people's assessed needs, including when one or two staff were needed for support. Managers could provide extra help if required.
“There were enough staff on duty to care for people safely during the day and night.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records were written around people's needs and desired outcomes. People were involved in daily choices and decisions about activities.
“These provided detailed information, written from the person's perspective, about the person's care and support needs and the outcomes people wanted to achieve.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw friendly, supportive relationships between staff and people. Staff respected people's personal space and dignity.
“During our visit we saw a good rapport between people who lived in the home and the staff who supported them.” from the report
Activities and choice
People were supported to follow their interests both inside and outside the home. Activities included shopping, pub visits, swimming, walks, cooking and IT skills.
“People were supported to follow their interests, take part in social activities and in educational opportunities.” from the report
Open management
People and staff could speak directly with managers. Regular checks were used to monitor care and safety.
“The registered manager encouraged open communication with people, staff and visitors.” from the report
Medicines cupboard lock
needs fixingNot all medicines were stored in line with legislation because a cupboard lock was faulty. The manager said it would be fixed straight away.
“Not all medicines were stored in accordance with the legislation.” from the report
Evacuation arrangements
needs fixingStaff knew the evacuation procedure but did not know where people should go if they could not return to the building. The manager said staff would be given this information.
“Staff were not aware of where they should take people if they could not go back into the building after evacuation.” from the report
Expired authorisations
needs fixingSome Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations had expired. The manager had requested extensions and was waiting for the local authority to respond.
“Some of the DoLS were expired.” from the report
Staff changes and short-notice rotas
minorThere had been a lot of staff changes in the previous 12 months. Staff received the following week's rota only two days before it started, although the manager felt the arrangements were sufficient.
“There had been a lot of staff changes in the previous 12 months.” from the report
- 01Has the faulty medicines cupboard lock been repaired, and how are medicines storage checks recorded now?
- 02What arrangements are in place for people if they cannot return to the building after an evacuation?
- 03Have all expired Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations been renewed or otherwise dealt with?
- 04How many staff have left since this inspection, and how far in advance are rotas now given to staff?
- 05How will you make sure care plans continue to reflect each person's changing needs and interests?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and providing ratings for each. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 August 2016 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 Cherre Residential Care
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 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 Leicester
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 £1,270 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“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.”
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing carer.”
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.