CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ingersley Court Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and risks were identified and managed. There were enough suitably qualified staff, medicines were managed safely and the environment was clean and well maintained.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed with their involvement. Staff were trained and supported, and people received help with food, drink and healthcare when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness and respect. Inspectors found a warm atmosphere, good relationships and support for people's privacy, dignity, independence and choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, history and preferences. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships and end of life planning.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers promoted person-centred care and staff morale was good. However, two audits had not been carried out thoroughly, including a medicines audit that missed an error in the controlled drugs book.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some management checks were not thorough.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 18 and 20 December 2019. They spoke with people living at the home, family members, staff and visiting professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment records and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe, were treated with respect and received care that matched their needs and preferences. Staff were described as trained, supportive and caring.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. The earlier breaches relating to safety, staffing, care planning and quality checks had been addressed, so the home was no longer in breach of regulations. However, two audits were not thorough, although managers acted on the issues during the inspection and inspectors found no harm had resulted.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. The home had safeguarding procedures, risk assessments, emergency plans and systems for learning from incidents.
“People living at Ingersley Court Residential Care Home told us they felt safe.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, histories and preferences. Staff knew people's likes and dislikes and used this knowledge in their care.
“Care plans were personalised and reflected people's individual needs, history and preferences.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found that staff treated people with kindness and respect. People and family members said staff were caring and did not keep them waiting for support.
“The atmosphere in the home was warm and welcoming.” from the report
Some audits were not thorough
needs fixingA manager's walk-around audit was not recorded on the inspection day. Two sluice room doors were open and unattended, and a medicines audit had missed an error in the controlled drugs book. Managers acted on these issues that day.
“However, two audits had not been carried out thoroughly.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that the controlled drugs book is accurate after the error found during inspection?
- 02How often are manager walk-around audits recorded, and who checks that they have been completed properly?
- 03What safeguards are in place to ensure sluice room doors are closed and the areas are not left unattended?
- 04What is the current position of the new manager's application to register with the CQC?
- 05How do you assess staffing levels as residents' care needs change?
This was an unannounced planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered all five CQC questions, with records, care and the home environment examined. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 February 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, December 2018
Ingersley Court Residential Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and good support with health, but safety, staffing, records and oversight needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 November 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They looked at care records, medicines, staff files and quality checks, and observed care.
People generally felt safe and said staff were kind, respectful and responsive to health needs. Food, activities, visiting arrangements and support from health professionals were viewed positively.
However, the home was not always safe. Inspectors found blocked fire exits, other environmental risks, gaps in medicines management and too few staff at some times, especially at night. Care plans and risk assessments were not always up to date. The systems used to check quality did not identify all these problems.
The overall rating Requires Improvement means the home was not consistently meeting the expected standards at the time of this inspection. The provider was required to send CQC an action plan, and CQC said it would check that action was taken.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the way staff treated them. Inspectors saw warm interactions, privacy during personal care and support for people's independence.
“Interactions between staff and people living in the home were warm and friendly and it was clear that staff knew the people they supported well.” from the report
Health support
People were supported by staff and outside health professionals. Relatives felt health needs were met and that they were kept informed about changes.
“People at the home were supported by the staff and external health and social care professionals to maintain their health and wellbeing.” from the report
Food and choice
Staff understood people's dietary needs. People had a choice of meals and where to eat, and told inspectors they enjoyed the food.
“We observed lunch and found that people had a choice as to where they ate their meals and had a choice of meal at both lunch and tea times.” from the report
Activities and complaints
A range of activities was planned, and people knew how to complain. The records showed that the complaints received had been investigated and answered.
“Records showed that these had been investigated and responded to in line with the policy and procedure in place.” from the report
Staffing levels
seriousThere were not always enough staff to meet people's needs promptly, particularly overnight. Inspectors saw one person wait ten minutes for a second staff member to help with a transfer.
“There were not always enough staff on duty to meet people's needs in a timely way, especially at night.” from the report
Medicines management
seriousMedicine records were not always accurate. Storage temperatures were not consistently recorded within the recommended range, and one medicine did not have clear instructions for when it should be given.
“We found that not all safe administration practices were adhered to.” from the report
Environmental safety
seriousInspectors found blocked fire exits, items that could injure vulnerable people, a leak and a raised patio with a fall risk. Some problems were fixed during the inspection, and the manager later confirmed fencing had been installed at the patio.
“We observed a number of concerns around the home, such as a blocked fire exit, scissors and kettles accessible to vulnerable people, a door that did not close in the frame and a bedroom door that was wedged open.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's audits did not identify all the concerns found during the inspection. The provider had also failed to notify CQC about some safeguarding incidents.
“Audits completed did not pick up on all the concerns we identified during the inspection, such as those regarding risks in the environment, staffing levels or the recording of consent.” from the report
Limited community trips
minorPeople enjoyed the activities inside the home but said they wanted more chances to go out into the community. The home did not have access to a vehicle for visits.
“The home does not have access to a vehicle to people on visits within the community and people and their relatives told us they would enjoy this.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to staffing levels, especially overnight and at weekends?
- 02How are medicine stock records, PRN instructions and storage temperatures now checked and acted on?
- 03How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed when a person's needs change?
- 04What checks now make sure environmental safety problems, including fire exits and fall risks, are found quickly?
- 05Have all required safeguarding notifications been sent to CQC, and how is this monitored now?
This was an unannounced inspection that assessed all five CQC questions and included the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 December 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 Ingersley Court Residential Care Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Ingersley Court Residential Care Home →
- December 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Ingersley Court Residential Care Home →
- October 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 October 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.