CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Danebank
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some safety checks had gaps and had not identified problems such as fire door repairs and unsecured hazardous chemicals. Medicines were generally managed safely, but some 'as required' medicine instructions and one cream-related risk assessment needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Best-interest decisions and mental capacity assessments were not always recorded or reviewed. The premises were not always clean or properly maintained, and some staff had incomplete training or had not received annual appraisals.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for Caring. People appeared comfortable, and relatives said staff were kind and caring.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for Responsive. Staff supported people's communication, sensory and nutritional needs, but relatives wanted more involvement in care reviews.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management systems did not identify or deal with problems quickly enough, and records were not always accurate. The home had been without a registered manager for several weeks, although a new manager was in post and intended to register.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care but serious gaps in consent, premises, records and management.
Inspectors visited on four days in January 2024. They spoke with family members and staff, observed care, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records. Three people were living in the home at the time.
People generally appeared comfortable and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Staff knew people well, supported access to healthcare and worked with other professionals. However, some restrictions and decisions were not properly recorded, parts of the building needed repair and cleaning, and staff training and appraisals were incomplete.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. This was worse than the previous Good rating, published in September 2018. The report identified four legal breaches.
Staff knew people well
There was generally a consistent permanent team, and staff understood the people they supported.
“generally people were supported by a consistent staff team and the permanent staff knew people well.” from the report
Kind and person-centred care
People appeared at ease with staff. Managers promoted an approach that valued people's individuality.
“They promoted a person-centred caring culture and staff valued people's individuality.” from the report
Healthcare support
Staff worked with health and social care professionals and helped people attend appointments and check-ups.
“People were supported to access health care services as needed.” from the report
Consent and least restrictive care
seriousBest-interest decisions were not always recorded for people who lacked capacity. The report also found that some restrictions were not properly reviewed.
“Staff had not always clearly recorded assessments and best interest decisions for people they assessed as lacking mental capacity for certain decisions.” from the report
Repairs, cleaning and safety checks
seriousA particular area needed significant repairs and cleaning. Two broken windows had been boarded up for more than eight weeks before new glazing was ordered.
“Significant repairs due to damage, along with cleaning was required within a particular area of the service.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousAudits and other systems did not identify or resolve all the problems found by inspectors. Records, including some DoLS information, were not always accurate or up to date.
“The provider did not have effective systems to ensure the quality and safety of the service and that accurate records were being kept.” from the report
Staff training and infection control
needs fixingSome relevant training and annual appraisals had not been completed. Staff were not always following current guidance on using protective equipment, and more cleaning was needed.
“Staff were not fully aware of and/or following aspects of current infection control guidance.” from the report
Missed notifications
seriousThe provider had not notified CQC about at least three events that should have been reported, including an allegation of abuse or an incident reported to police.
“there had been at least 3 events which CQC should have been notified about but had not been.” from the report
- 01What has been done to record and review best-interest decisions and make sure restrictions are the least restrictive option?
- 02Have the damaged windows, fire doors and other maintenance and cleaning problems now been fully fixed?
- 03How do you check that all staff have completed role-relevant training and annual appraisals?
- 04What has changed in the system for checking records, DoLS conditions, audits and other quality and safety issues?
- 05How are relatives now involved in planning and regularly reviewing their family member's care?
The inspection looked at the care and premises and gave ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led; the report does not give separate ratings for Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 February 2024 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, September 2018
Danebank was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with one relative saying activities outside the home had not always been enough.
Inspectors visited on 6 and 7 August 2018. The visit was announced. They observed the two people living there, spoke with staff and managers, and reviewed care plans, medicines, recruitment and training records, policies, complaints and management checks.
The home supported up to four young adults with learning disabilities. Inspectors found staff were trained, medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed and safeguarding procedures were understood. People had detailed care plans, appropriate food and drink support, and access to healthcare.
Inspectors saw kind and patient staff who respected privacy, promoted independence and offered choices. People took part in activities they chose, although one relative felt someone did not get out enough, despite this having improved.
The overall rating was Good, and each of the five areas was also rated Good. This means the inspection found the service was meeting the relevant standards at that time, but the report is from August 2018.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience and kindness. Privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“People were supported by staff that were kind, caring and patient.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans described people's needs, choices, communication and risks in detail. They were reviewed and updated when needed.
“Care plans were individualised and person centred. They were very detailed and held clear information for staff to follow about each person's individual needs and choices.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored, given and recorded correctly. Staff had medicines training and their competence was checked regularly.
“Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and returned in accordance with best practice guidelines.” from the report
Good management checks
The provider carried out regular checks on care plans, incidents, medicines, health and safety and the environment. Improvements were identified and addressed promptly.
“Records showed areas for development and improvement had been identified and were promptly addressed.” from the report
Activities outside the home
minorOne relative felt the person did not get out enough, although they said this had improved. Families should check how activity choices and outings are planned now.
“[Name] doesn't seem to get out enough although this has improved.” from the report
- 01How often would my relative take part in activities outside the home, and how would you make sure these match their choices?
- 02How would you use my relative's communication guidance, including any non-verbal communication, when providing support?
- 03How would you manage any risks linked to my relative's health, mobility, personal care or behaviour?
- 04How are medicines checked and how often is staff competence in medicines administration reassessed?
- 05How would my relative and family be involved in reviewing the care plan and raising concerns?
This was an announced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, the care provided and the home environment; two people were living there at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 September 2018 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 Danebank
2 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 August 2017.
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.