CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Danesmoor Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, staffing levels met people's needs, and risks, medicines and infection control were managed safely. Inspectors found one gap in a staff member's employment history, which the manager said would be addressed.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says staff had good relationships with people and treated them with kindness and respect.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's current needs and staff knew people's preferences. People were supported with activities, communication, complaints and end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager had effective audits and action plans, and people and staff were asked for their views. The service had improved from the previous inspection and was no longer in breach of Regulation 17.
What inspectors found, November 2021
Rated Good after a focused inspection found safe, kind and well-managed care, with one recruitment record gap.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 2 and 3 November 2021. They spoke with people living in the home, staff, managers and a visiting healthcare professional. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. People said they felt safe and that staff were kind, caring and responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments, clean surroundings and care plans that reflected people's current needs.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. Systems for checking quality and managing risks were now effective. Inspectors found one gap in a staff member's employment history, and the manager said this would be addressed.
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Effective and Caring were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Risk assessments and emergency plans supported people's safety and independence.
“People told us they felt safe living in the home and staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed staff responding to people's needs with kindness and respect. Staff knew people's preferences and supported their choices.
“We observed staff responding to people's needs with kindness and respect.” from the report
Personalised care planning
The new electronic care planning system gave staff access to up-to-date information. Care plans described people's current needs and were reviewed regularly.
“Each person had an individual care plan, which was reflective of their current needs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities such as arts and crafts, games, baking and walks. Inspectors found that activities reflected people's interests and preferences.
“People were supported to take part in meaningful activities in line with their interests and preferences.” from the report
Improved management
The manager had introduced wider quality checks and action plans. Staff said morale had improved and they felt valued and supported.
“The registered manager had established effective systems to monitor the standard and quality of the service.” from the report
Employment history gap
minorOne of the two staff files checked had a gap in the person's employment history. The manager said this would be addressed.
“we found gaps in one staff member's history of employment.” from the report
- 01What action was taken to resolve the gap in the staff member's employment history?
- 02How do you check that risk assessments and care plans remain up to date?
- 03How are medicines records and staff medicines practice checked now?
- 04What activities are available for a person with particular interests, communication needs or cultural needs?
- 05What were the ratings for Effective and Caring at the previous comprehensive inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led only; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over into the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 November 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, October 2020
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and timely care but serious gaps in care records, staff training and quality checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 09 September 2020. One inspector spoke with six people, staff, the manager and a relative by telephone. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
People said they felt safe and were satisfied with the care. The home was clean, staff responded promptly and there were enough staff on duty. However, care plans did not show people's current needs and risks. Agency staff did not have written information about the people they supported.
Inspectors also found gaps in safeguarding and medicines training, accident records, personal care records, infection control checks and quality monitoring. The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. This was the third consecutive inspection with this rating, and the overall rating stayed Requires Improvement.
Clean environment
The areas inspectors saw were clean and hygienic. People's rooms were personalised with their own belongings.
“We saw the home was clean and hygienic in all areas seen.” from the report
Staff availability
There were enough staff on duty during the inspection, and people received help promptly.
“The home was calm, and staff attended to people's needs promptly.” from the report
People felt satisfied
People told inspectors they were happy with the home and had no complaints or worries.
“People told us they were satisfied with the care provided and had no complaints.” from the report
Commitment to improvement
The new manager and provider said they were committed to making changes and introducing new systems.
“The manager explained she intended to implement new systems and ways of working across the whole operation of the home.” from the report
Care plans did not show current risks
seriousPeople's care plans had not been updated to reflect their current needs and risks. Agency staff also lacked written information about the people they were supporting.
“The provider had failed to ensure current risks to people's health and safety were appropriately assessed and recorded in people's care plans.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousInspectors found significant gaps in records and audits. There was no effective evidence that accidents, incidents and other information were being reviewed to improve care.
“The provider had failed to operate effective systems to assess, monitor and manage the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Staff training records
needs fixingThere was limited evidence that new staff had completed induction, safeguarding and other mandatory training. Medicines training and regular supervision were also not fully evidenced.
“There was limited evidence to demonstrate staff had completed induction training.” from the report
Incomplete accident records
needs fixingThere were no further accident and incident records after April 2020, including records of falls. This made it difficult to know whether lessons had been learned.
“This meant it was difficult to determine if any lessons had been learned and if any learning had been disseminated to staff.” from the report
Medicines checks
needs fixingInspectors found an error in the controlled drugs register, missing body maps for skin patches and an unlabelled prescribed cream. There was no evidence of a medicines audit.
“There was also one unlabelled tube of prescribed topical cream in one person's bedroom.” from the report
PPE was not always used correctly
needs fixingThere were enough supplies of protective equipment, but some staff were not wearing face masks correctly.
“However, two ancillary staff were not wearing face masks and one agency member of staff was not wearing a mask appropriately.” from the report
- 01How have you updated each resident's care plan to show their current needs and risks?
- 02How do agency staff receive written information about people's needs, preferences and risks before providing care?
- 03What evidence can you show that all staff have completed safeguarding, medicines, induction and mandatory training?
- 04How are accidents, falls and incidents now recorded, reviewed and shared with staff?
- 05What audits are now being completed to check care records, medicines, infection control and the overall quality of the home?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 October 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.
Every inspection of Danesmoor Residential Care Home
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Danesmoor Residential Care Home →
- October 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Danesmoor Residential Care Home →
- May 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.