CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sherwood
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, cleaning, visitors and outbreak arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 25 March 2021. It focused only on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found that staff used suitable personal protective equipment and had received relevant training. The home was clean, with regular enhanced cleaning recorded.
There were clear arrangements for visitors, including symptom checks, protective equipment and social distancing. Staff and residents were tested regularly.
The home was inspected but not rated. The inspection does not provide an overall quality rating or ratings for most areas of care.
PPE and staff training
Staff had suitable protective equipment, and training covered infection control, COVID-19 and the safe use of PPE.
“Staff had received training in infection control, COVID-19 and how to put on and take off PPE safely.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and records showed that enhanced cleaning was carried out regularly.
“The home was clean and records showed that enhanced cleaning was being completed regularly throughout the home.” from the report
Managed visits
Visitors were screened and required to use PPE and follow social distancing arrangements.
“There were clear processes in place for visitors to the service.” from the report
Regular testing
People living at the home and staff were tested regularly so action could be taken if someone had COVID-19.
“Staff and people living at the home were being tested regularly, to ensure that appropriate action could be taken if anyone contracted the COVID-19 virus.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are PPE supplies, staff training and infection control checks being maintained now?
- 02How often are residents and staff currently tested for COVID-19 or other infections?
- 03How are visitors screened and supported to visit safely now?
- 04What arrangements are in place if there is an infection outbreak?
- 05When was the home last inspected for care quality areas other than infection prevention and control?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 April 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, December 2018
Sherwood was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor record-keeping and activities issues.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 20 and 21 November 2018. The inspector reviewed care records, staff recruitment and training records, medicines, complaints, safety checks and quality audits. They spoke with people living at the home, staff, the manager, the provider and relatives, and contacted health and social care professionals.
The inspectors found that all five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, respected and supported. Staff were trained, medicines were generally managed safely, care plans reflected people's needs, and people received support with food, drink and healthcare.
The home had systems for checking quality and safety, and people and relatives were asked for feedback. Inspectors noted some minor shortfalls, including an undated prescribed cream, incomplete cleaning schedules and one person's wish for more varied activities. The overall rating remained Good, as it had been at the previous inspection in August 2016.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found safe recruitment, safeguarding knowledge, risk assessments and medicines procedures. Medicines were observed being given safely and sensitively.
“We saw evidence that staff had been recruited safely and the staff we spoke with were aware of how to safeguard adults at risk of abuse.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff received a thorough induction, updated training and regular supervision. People felt staff had the skills to meet their needs.
“Records showed that staff completed a thorough induction when they joined the service and their training was updated regularly.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
People said staff were kind and respectful. Inspectors saw staff give people time, protect their privacy and encourage independence.
“We observed staff supporting people sensitively and repeating information when necessary to ensure that people understood them.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans contained detailed information about people's needs, risks, preferences and abilities. People said they were treated as individuals and offered choices.
“Each care file was personalised and contained information about what people were able to do for themselves, what support was needed and how this should be provided by staff.” from the report
Quality oversight
The manager and senior staff completed regular audits covering areas such as medicines, accidents, infection control and care records. The provider also reviewed the audits.
“We found the audits completed were effective in ensuring that high levels of quality and safety were maintained at the service.” from the report
Medicine record
needs fixingOne person's prescribed cream had not been dated when it was opened. The manager said staff would be reminded to do this.
“We noted that one person's prescribed cream had not been dated upon opening.” from the report
Cleaning records
minorThe home was described as clean, but staff had not recently completed the cleaning schedules to show that tasks had been done. Completed schedules were sent to inspectors after the visit.
“We noted that cleaning schedules had not been completed recently by staff, to demonstrate that appropriate cleaning tasks had been completed.” from the report
Range of activities
minorMost people were happy with the activities, but one person sometimes felt bored and wanted more variety. The manager said this would be discussed with them.
“However, one person told us they were bored sometimes and would like a wider variety of activities to be made available.” from the report
Staff meetings
minorStaff meetings were not held regularly. Staff said they were happy with this and could raise issues at other times.
“We noted that staff meetings did not take place regularly.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure prescribed creams are dated when opened, and how was this issue followed up?
- 02How do you record and check that cleaning tasks have been completed?
- 03What new activities are available for people who feel bored or want more variety?
- 04How are staff kept informed and able to raise concerns when regular staff meetings are not held?
- 05What improvements have been made since the inspection, including the planned dining room redecoration and hallway carpets?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and all five ratings were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 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 Sherwood
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 May 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.