CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Chester House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, staffing, medicines, infection control and incidents were managed through procedures and regular checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had access to healthcare and their needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff had relevant training and support, and nutritional needs were managed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described and observed as kind, attentive, respectful and compassionate. People were involved in their care and their privacy, dignity and choices were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected individual needs, preferences and routines. People had activities, could receive visitors, had communication support and knew how to complain.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was described as consistently managed and well-led. Audits, feedback, partnership working and action plans were used to monitor and improve care.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Chester House Care Home: Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with stronger leadership since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 December 2019. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, visitors, staff and a director. They reviewed care records, medicines procedures, staffing, training, management records and the building.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff were kind and respectful, medicines were managed safely, and care was planned around people's needs and choices.
People received varied meals, activities and support to stay connected with others. Staff worked with health professionals, and people's end of life wishes and communication needs were recorded.
The overall rating was unchanged from the previous inspection in 2017. The Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement because a registered manager was now in place.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were given on time, recorded properly and checked through regular audits.
“Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines when they should.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and attentive. Inspectors observed respectful and compassionate support, including when someone became distressed.
“People were supported by caring and respectful staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered personal care, oral health, nutrition, social interests and communication. Staff understood people's individual needs and routines.
“Care files were person-centred and individualised documents reflected each person's assessment of needs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in trips, games, music, films and community events. Visitors were welcomed, and some people accessed the community independently.
“People told us social activities were organised to keep them entertained and stimulated.” from the report
Improved leadership
The Well-led rating improved because the home had a registered manager in place. People and staff spoke positively about how the home was managed.
“At this inspection this key question has now improved to good because there is a registered manager in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and regularly update my relative's risks and care plan if their needs change?
- 02How do you check that medicines are given on time and that any errors or concerns are acted on?
- 03What activities would be suitable for my relative's interests, communication needs and ability to access the community?
- 04How will you record and follow my relative's end of life, cultural and spiritual wishes?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in care plan reviews and decisions about their care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the accommodation and care provided; the previous overall rating was Good, while Well-led had previously been Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 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, April 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found major improvements and kind, safe care, but the home was rated Requires Improvement for leadership.
Inspectors visited over three days on 27 and 28 February and 1 March 2017. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people living in the home, staff, a relative and a healthcare professional. They looked around the building and checked care records, medicines, staff files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, staff were better trained and supported, care plans had improved, and people received kind and respectful support. People had access to healthcare, suitable food and activities linked to their interests.
The overall rating improved from Inadequate at the previous inspection in August 2016. The home had been placed in special measures then. Inspectors said all the regulatory breaches identified at that inspection had been met. However, there was no registered manager in post, so well-led was rated Requires Improvement while inspectors checked whether the improvements would last.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely, in line with prescribers’ instructions.
“Medicines were managed safely and people were receiving their medicines in line with the prescriber's instructions.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were attentive and treated people with kindness. Inspectors saw privacy and dignity respected during personal care.
“We observed staff giving kind and caring support to people.” from the report
Improved staff support
Staff had completed induction and training and were receiving regular supervision and annual appraisals.
“Staff members received an employment induction, regular supervision and training to help make sure people were provided with care and support that met their needs.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities reflected people’s hobbies and preferences. Inspectors saw records of activities such as shopping, nail painting, board games and singing.
“We saw that meaningful activities were provided based on people's personal preferences.” from the report
Better care planning
Care records had been reviewed and gave staff clearer information about people’s needs, preferences and risks.
“All care plans had been reviewed and new documentation had been implemented which included details of what assistance the person required to meet their individual, assessed care needs.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. The service was being managed by the providers and an assistant manager, and inspectors wanted to check that improvements could be sustained.
“At the time of the inspection there was no manager in post although there was an assistant manager in post.” from the report
First aider not shown on rota
needs fixingThe staff rota did not clearly identify the first aider for each shift. The assistant manager said this would be put in place.
“We saw the staff rota did not clearly identify the first aider working on each shift in case of a first aid emergency.” from the report
Kitchen deep-clean records
minorDeep cleaning was taking place, but there was initially no schedule to show when parts of the kitchen, such as the cooker and cupboards, had been cleaned. A monthly checklist was introduced after the inspection.
“However it was noted that although deep cleaning was being undertaken there was not a schedule in place for that cleaning in the kitchen.” from the report
- 01Who is managing the home now, and has a registered manager been appointed?
- 02How do you make sure the first aider is clearly identified on every shift?
- 03How do you check that the improvements made after the previous Inadequate rating have continued?
- 04How often is the kitchen deep cleaned, and where can families see the completed records?
- 05How are residents’ preferred activities reviewed and updated?
This was a three-day inspection covering all five rating areas and checking improvements made since the previous inspection, including whether earlier breaches had been addressed. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 April 2017 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
Every inspection of Chester House Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Stockport
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.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.