CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Cranford Grange
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were generally protected from harm, medicines were managed safely and the home was clean. However, people reported waiting for help at times, so inspectors recommended a review of staffing arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and supervision, and people's dietary and health needs were supported. Some records did not fully show that the Mental Capacity Act had been followed in one decision.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were generally kind, respectful and supportive of people's dignity, privacy and independence. Inspectors found one example where a staff member's approach did not match the provider's values, and action was taken.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans contained person-centred information and people had access to activities, entertainment and support to maintain relationships. The home planned to involve relatives more effectively in care planning and reviews.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management and governance systems were effective and the home used feedback and complaints to make improvements. Inspectors found some gaps in records and one incident that had not been fully reported to CQC at the time.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Cranford Grange was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care but noted delays in getting help and some record-keeping gaps.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 16 and 17 February and 2 March 2023. They spoke with 14 people, 6 relatives and 16 staff. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Most people and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw kind staff, safe medicine systems, good infection control and suitable training.
The main concern was staffing. Although inspectors saw enough staff during the visits, some people said they waited too long for help. Inspectors recommended that staffing arrangements be reviewed.
The home had systems to monitor quality and had started action on issues found. These included improving some care records, involving relatives more in care reviews, strengthening safeguarding reporting and improving communication.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, recorded and administered safely. Staff had training and checks of their competence.
“Medicines were managed safely. Systems were in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff received induction, training and supervision. New staff completed shadowing and training before taking on their roles.
“People were supported by staff who received appropriate training and supervision.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were generally treated with kindness and respect. Staff supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“Feedback indicated staff respected people's dignity and privacy.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could choose from varied activities and entertainment. The home also supported people to maintain relationships and make new ones.
“A varied programme of entertainment and activities were available.” from the report
People's involvement
People were involved in decisions about their care and the running of the home. Resident Ambassadors, meetings and forums helped gather their views.
“People were supported to take part in decisions about their care and the running of the service.” from the report
Waiting for assistance
needs fixingSome people and relatives said they waited too long for help, including help to use the toilet. Inspectors asked the provider to review staffing arrangements.
“We recommend that the provider reviews their staffing arrangements, in line with people's feedback.” from the report
Safeguarding reporting
needs fixingOne safeguarding concern was dealt with internally but was not reported through the usual procedure while the registered manager was absent. It was reviewed and reported retrospectively.
“However, we found an example where a concern had been identified and dealt with internally, but in the registered manager's absence had not been reported through usual procedures.” from the report
Care records
needs fixingSome records did not show that care had been provided in line with care plans about people's positional changes. The home was working on more timely recording and a new electronic system.
“We noted that records did not always reflect care had been provided in line with care plans relating to people's positional changes” from the report
Mental Capacity Act records
needs fixingIn one case, records did not clearly show that the Mental Capacity Act process had been followed when considering risk management and whether a best-interest meeting was needed.
“However, in one case, relating a person's decision around risk management, records did not demonstrate the MCA had been robustly followed around whether a best interest meeting was appropriate.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to staffing levels and call bell response times since the inspection?
- 02How do you make sure people are not left waiting for help with personal care or using the toilet?
- 03How are safeguarding concerns reported when the registered manager is absent?
- 04What checks now make sure care records accurately record positional changes and other care provided?
- 05How are relatives being included in care planning and review meetings?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole service and all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection of the newly registered service under the current provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 April 2023 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 Cranford Grange
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 December 2021.
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.