CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Eversley
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found unresolved fire risks, including concerns about the external fire escape and missing risk assessments. Staffing levels, recruitment, medicines, infection control and safeguarding systems were otherwise described positively.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management checks had not identified or dealt with fire safety, staff supervision, training, one-to-one hours and maintenance issues. The home did not have a registered manager, although some improvements were started during the inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found fire-safety and management checks were not reliable, although care was tailored and people spoke positively about staff.
This was a focused inspection on 11 and 24 January 2024. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
Inspectors found outstanding fire risks, including an external fire escape that was not well maintained and missing risk assessments. They also found that checks on staff training, supervision, one-to-one hours and repairs had not been effective.
People received personalised care and staff knew them well. People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Medicines, infection control, safeguarding and mental capacity arrangements were found to be working safely.
The overall rating changed from Good at the last inspection in 2017 to Requires Improvement. The provider breached regulations about safe care and treatment and good governance. The home took some action during the inspection, but CQC requested an action plan and will monitor progress.
Personalised support
Care was tailored to people's needs and wishes. People and relatives were involved in care planning and reviews.
“People received care and support that was tailored to their individual needs and wishes.” from the report
Positive staff relationships
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors observed caring and supportive interactions.
“We observed caring and supportive interactions between people living at the service and staff.” from the report
Medicines and safeguarding
People received medicines as prescribed, with accurate records. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse, and infection control practices were followed.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and accurate records were maintained.” from the report
Fire safety risks
seriousInspectors found fire risks that had not been dealt with, including concerns about the external fire escape and the lack of a risk assessment for its use.
“There was no risk assessment in place for the use of and access to this fire exit.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe home's monitoring systems had not identified or resolved important issues with fire safety, staff supervision, training, one-to-one hours and maintenance.
“The governance systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service was not always effective.” from the report
Training and supervision records
needs fixingSome staff had not received supervision as often as the provider's policy required. Training records also had low uptake in safeguarding and other topics.
“Some staff had told us they didn't have much supervision in the last 12 months.” from the report
Outdoor areas and repairs
needs fixingThe garden areas needed maintenance, and ongoing maintenance was one of the areas not identified by the provider's quality monitoring.
“The garden areas were in need of maintenance to help improve and enhance living areas for people.” from the report
- 01What has now been done to fix the fire risks and maintain the external fire escape?
- 02Can you show us the current risk assessment and evacuation arrangements for each person?
- 03How are you checking that staff receive the required supervision and training?
- 04How do you record and monitor each person's one-to-one hours?
- 05What is the timetable for garden maintenance and other outstanding repairs?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried over from the last inspection in 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found safe COVID-19 infection prevention and control practices.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 3 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, including testing, protective equipment, cleaning, visits and safe admissions. They also asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors found examples of good practice. Staff used protective equipment safely, supplies were available, people and staff were tested regularly, and the home was clean and hygienic. The home had processes for safe admissions, isolation and managing infection outbreaks.
Relatives spoke positively about the home and said staff kept them updated. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
Safe admissions and infection control
The home had arrangements for safe admissions, isolation and preventing or managing infection outbreaks. People and staff were tested regularly.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff were observed using protective equipment safely, and inspectors found sufficient supplies available.
“During our visit we observed the staff using Personal Protective Equipment, (PPE) safely.” from the report
Clean surroundings
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic, with cleaning schedules and extra cleaning arrangements in place.
“The home was clean and hygienic. Cleaning schedules were in place and PPE stations placed around the home.” from the report
Communication with relatives
Relatives spoke positively about the service and said staff kept them updated and supported contact.
“Support staff contact us regularly to keep us updated.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are people and staff currently tested for COVID-19 and other infections?
- 02How do you manage safe admissions and isolation when someone returns from hospital?
- 03How do you make sure there are enough staff when COVID-19 causes staffing pressures?
- 04How are visits and regular contact with relatives supported now?
- 05How often are cleaning schedules and infection prevention arrangements reviewed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about COVID-19 staffing pressures; it was inspected but not rated and did not provide ratings for the other areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 2022 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 Eversley
3 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 December 2012.
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
84 live-in carers within about an hour of Cheshire West and Chester
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. 76 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.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.