CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Station Road - Holmes Chapel
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found trained staff, risk assessments, suitable staffing and safe recruitment. Medicines were managed safely overall, but one tablet discrepancy was found and immediately corrected.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments and care plans, access to health professionals and support with food, drink and independence. Staff had wide-ranging training, with 93% of training completed and the remaining courses scheduled.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff supported privacy, independence, choice and communication, and relatives said people were happy and well cared for.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, personalised and regularly reviewed. People had tailored activities, support to maintain relationships and communication information in suitable formats.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive, inclusive culture and systems to monitor quality. People, relatives and staff had regular opportunities to share their views.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Station Road - Holmes Chapel was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with a medicine stock discrepancy corrected during the visit.
This was a planned inspection on 6 March 2020. One inspector spoke with three people living there, two relatives, the manager and four staff. They also observed care and checked care, medicine and management records.
The home supported four people with learning disabilities and/or autism. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with respect and supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities. Care plans and communication support were personalised.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall and key-question rating as the previous inspection, published on 5 September 2017.
Protection from abuse
Staff were trained and knew how to respond to safeguarding concerns. Relatives told inspectors they felt people were safe.
“People were protected from abuse by trained staff who were aware of the policies and procedures to follow should abuse occur.” from the report
Personalised support
Each person had an individual care plan that reflected their choices, likes and dislikes. Support aimed to build independence and offer meaningful activities.
“Each person had a bespoke care plan which was detailed, personalised and regularly reviewed.” from the report
Dignity and respect
Inspectors saw warm relationships between staff and people. Privacy was respected and support was offered discreetly.
“People were treated with dignity and respect. We observed that their privacy was respected at all times.” from the report
Communication support
Communication needs were recorded in individual profiles. Staff used different methods, including visual aids, and could access specialist advice.
“People's individual communication needs were assessed and reflected within detailed communication profiles.” from the report
Health support
People could access a wide range of health and social care professionals. Their health needs were included in their care planning.
“People were supported to maintain their health and well-being with access to a wide range of health and social care professionals.” from the report
Quality oversight
The home had audits and additional provider oversight to check the quality of care and identify learning.
“Systems and a robust suite of audits were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Medicine stock check
needs fixingInspectors found one tablet missing from the recorded stock of one medicine. This was corrected immediately and the reporting procedure was followed.
“We checked the stock of three medicines and found a discrepancy of one tablet in one medication.” from the report
Future wishes
minorThe home was not providing end of life care at the time. The manager had identified recording people's future wishes in care plans as an improvement area.
“Incorporating information about future wishes within care plans was an area the registered manager had identified as part of their improvement plans.” from the report
Training completion
minorMost staff training was complete, but not all courses had been completed at the time of inspection. The remaining courses were scheduled.
“Completion rate was recorded at 93%, remaining courses were scheduled.” from the report
- 01What checks are now used to prevent medicine stock discrepancies?
- 02When will future wishes be added to each person's care plan?
- 03Which staff training courses were outstanding at the inspection, and have they now been completed?
- 04How will you support my relative's communication needs and preferred way of expressing choices?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and deciding activities?
This was a planned inspection that looked at the care provided and the premises, and rated all five key questions; the previous overall rating was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 March 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, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 July 2017. One inspector spoke with three people living at the home, three staff members and the residential manager. The inspector also observed care, looked around the home and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home supported four people with learning disabilities who needed help to manage epilepsy. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements and suitable checks when staff were recruited. People were supported to understand risks while keeping as much independence as possible.
People were involved in decisions about their care, meals and activities. Staff understood their communication needs and supported contact with family and friends. People were treated with dignity, and complaints were available in an easy-read format.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It had also been rated Good in all areas at the previous inspection in November 2014, so the overall rating remained Good.
Safe epilepsy support
The home assessed people's risks and gave staff clear guidance about seizure medicines and how to respond to seizures.
“We saw that where people required 'as required' medicines to control their epileptic seizures these contained detailed guidance for staff to follow.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in everyday decisions, food preparation and activities. Staff supported independence while managing risks.
“People continued to be supported to have as much choice and control as they were able to in their daily life.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw patient, caring interactions. Staff adapted their communication, including using Makaton and other communication aids.
“We observed dignified and caring interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Personalised activities and relationships
People were supported with hobbies, holidays, work and visits with family and friends. Their preferences were recorded in support plans.
“People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care.” from the report
Open management
People and staff could approach managers and give feedback. Audits and meetings were used to identify and make improvements.
“Effective systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service people received.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are each person's epilepsy risks and seizure medicines managed now?
- 02What specialist training do staff currently receive for epilepsy and communication needs?
- 03How are people and relatives involved in care plan reviews and decisions about activities?
- 04How do you support people to maintain contact with family and friends?
- 05Has the community vehicle mentioned in the report been purchased, and how does it support people's outings?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the home, covering Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 September 2017 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 Station Road - Holmes Chapel
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Station Road - Holmes Chapel →
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Station Road - Holmes Chapel →
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 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
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.