CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sherwood House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that the home was following safe infection prevention and control procedures. They found arrangements for visitors, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control measures were keeping people safe.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 December 2020. It looked at infection prevention and control because of the coronavirus pandemic.
The home restricted entry, stopped new admissions and limited visitors. Visitors had their temperature checked, answered health questions and were recorded. The home had enough protective equipment, regular testing and increased staffing.
Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections, using protective equipment safely, following distancing and shielding rules, and keeping its infection control policy up to date. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Controlled access
Entry was restricted and visitors were screened before being allowed inside. The home also kept a record of visitors.
“Before entering the home all visitors had their temperature checked and were asked a series of questions about their current health.” from the report
Family contact
Staff helped people stay in touch with family and friends through technology and regular telephone calls while visits were restricted.
“Staff supported people to maintain contact with family and friends in other ways.” from the report
Protective equipment and testing
The home had enough protective equipment, checked its stock and carried out regular testing of staff and people living there.
“There were adequate supplies of PPE and stock levels were regularly checked.” from the report
Extra staffing
Staff numbers had been increased on all shifts, particularly to support people living with dementia during the restrictions.
“Staff numbers had been increased on all shifts.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits arranged now, and do visitors still use the conservatory rather than other parts of the home?
- 02What testing is currently carried out for staff and people living at the home?
- 03How do staff identify whether someone has COVID-19 or is waiting for a test result?
- 04Are staffing levels still higher on all shifts, including for people living with dementia?
- 05What were the home's latest ratings for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care, since this inspection did not assess those areas?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated, and the other four question areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 December 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, July 2019
Sherwood House is rated Good overall, but Safe requires improvement because staffing levels were not always enough to support people safely.
This was an unannounced, scheduled inspection on 16 May 2019. One inspector visited, spoke with people, a relative, staff and managers, and reviewed care plans, staff files, audits and risk assessments. This was the first full comprehensive inspection since the provider registered in April 2018.
Inspectors found that staffing was not always sufficient. Three people needed two staff for personal care and transfers, but only two care staff were on duty while a senior was giving medicines. Some call bells rang for more than ten minutes before being answered. Inspectors said this increased the risk of harm and rated Safe as Requires Improvement.
Other areas were rated Good. People were treated kindly and with dignity, medicines were administered safely, care was personalised, and the home was clean and suitable. People received support with food, health care, activities and complaints.
The overall rating was Good. This means inspectors found the service was performing well overall, but the Safe rating shows an important shortfall that needed improvement.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw people being treated with kindness, dignity and respect. People and relatives were involved in decisions about care.
“We observed that people were treated with kindness,dignity and respect. We received feedback from people and relatives which supported this.” from the report
Medicines handled safely
Staff who gave medicines were trained and assessed as competent. Records had no missing signatures and medicines were given as prescribed.
“Medicine administration records were all signed for when medicine had been given and there were no missing signatures.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people well and understood their preferences. Care plans included people's communication needs and personal choices.
“People were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their preferences.” from the report
Good quality monitoring
The management had recorded checks covering areas such as the environment, staff support, health and safety, and incidents.
“The management showed clear evidence of a robust quality monitoring process for the home which was recorded.” from the report
Not enough staff at times
seriousThere were not enough staff to support three people who needed two staff for personal care and transfers. The senior staff member was administering medicines and could not help with care at that time.
“There were 14 people using the service at the time of our visit and three of them required the support of two staff when they moved and for their personal care.” from the report
Long waits for call bells
seriousSome call bells rang for more than ten minutes before staff answered them. This happened several times, especially in the morning.
“During our visit some call bells were ringing for more than ten minutes before being answered.” from the report
Care records not always easy to follow
needs fixingSome care information was held electronically and some on paper. Inspectors said this made it difficult to identify the most recent review.
“This made it difficult to always see what was the most recent review.” from the report
- 01What staffing changes have been made since the inspection for people who need two staff for personal care and transfers?
- 02How do you now make sure call bells are answered promptly, including during busy morning routines?
- 03How would you respond if an emergency happened while a senior staff member was administering medicines?
- 04How do you make sure staff can identify the latest care plan review when information is held electronically and on paper?
- 05What evidence can you show that the staffing and call bell concerns have been addressed?
This was a scheduled, unannounced full comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and was the first full comprehensive inspection since the provider registered in April 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 July 2019 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 House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 April 2018.
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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.