CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Turnpike Court Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Staff were not always able to respond quickly to people's care needs. Inspectors also found gaps in Mental Capacity Act records, inconsistencies in care records and no routine visual checks of some equipment at the time of inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. A previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating, but it is not stated in the supplied report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The report says people were positive about the care and were treated with dignity and respect.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The report says care plans included information about how people wished to receive support, although some personal information was missing.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found good leadership, an open culture and systems for audits, training and improvement. They recommended clearer sharing of outcomes from meetings with people.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Turnpike Court Residential Care Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind care and good leadership, but safety needed improvement because staffing and some records were not always reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 June and 04 July 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They observed care and reviewed care records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Well-led was rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, meaning some aspects were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety.
People and relatives generally spoke positively about the care and felt people were safe. Inspectors found kind staff, safe medicines management, suitable recruitment checks and good infection control. However, staff were sometimes too busy to respond quickly, and some Mental Capacity Act records and care records were incomplete or inconsistent.
The other three areas were not inspected during this visit. Their previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating, but those ratings are not given in the supplied report.
Kind and respectful care
People were positive about the care and support. Staff were described as kind and knowledgeable about people's needs.
“People were positive about the care and support they received.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely, records were completed accurately and staff were trained and assessed as competent.
“Prescribed medicines were managed safely in line with national guidance.” from the report
Recruitment and training
The home followed recruitment checks and provided training suitable for staff roles, with ongoing training.
“Recruitment processes were robust. Checks were carried out to ensure suitable staff were employed.” from the report
Open management
Inspectors found managers open to feedback and staff felt supported. The home had audits and systems to identify improvements.
“Throughout the inspection the registered manager, management team and staff were open and transparent to feedback given, addressing any queries throughout.” from the report
Staff response times
seriousStaff were sometimes too busy to respond quickly to people's immediate care needs. Inspectors recommended closer monitoring of staffing levels and deployment.
“There was not always enough staff to respond to people's needs quickly.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act records
needs fixingCapacity assessments and best-interest decisions did not always follow the required principles. Records did not always show family or advocacy involvement.
“Capacity assessments and best interest decisions did not always follow the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.” from the report
Care records
needs fixingSome records had gaps, leading to inconsistencies in how care was recorded. The home said it was already working on this.
“We identified some gaps in people's records which meant there were some inconsistencies in how the delivery of people's care was recorded.” from the report
Sharing meeting outcomes
minorPeople gave mixed feedback about whether they could attend meetings and whether outcomes were shared with them.
“We recommend the provider reviews how feedback from meetings with people are shared.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to staffing levels and staff deployment since the inspection, and how do you check that people receive prompt help?
- 02How do you now record capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and any involvement from family members or advocates?
- 03How are care records checked for gaps or inconsistencies, and what happens when an error is found?
- 04How are people told about the outcomes of residents' meetings if they cannot attend?
- 05How often are pressure-relieving equipment checks carried out and recorded?
This inspection looked at Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection and are not given in the supplied report. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 September 2023 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 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 14 January 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found good practice. Visitors were screened, had their temperature checked and were given masks and access to personal protective equipment. The home had increased cleaning, used protective equipment correctly and carried out regular COVID-19 testing.
Relatives spoke positively about communication and visits. Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, but the service was not given an overall quality rating or a rated Safe score.
Visitor safety
Visitors completed health screening, had their temperature checked and were given masks and protective equipment.
“All visitors were asked to complete a health screening form, have their temperature checked and were provided with face masks to wear throughout their visit.” from the report
Clean environment
The home had increased its cleaning routines to reduce the risk of infection.
“The service had increased the cleaning schedules and routines to reduce the risks of cross infection.” from the report
Good communication
Relatives said they received regular updates and that visits were arranged in a planned and managed way.
“We get regular telephone calls from staff with updates about [Name]” from the report
Staff training and testing
Staff had training for their roles and for managing COVID-19. People and staff were taking part in regular testing.
“Staff had all received training to meet the requirements of their role and for the management of COVID19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often are people living in the home and staff tested for COVID-19 now?
- 02How are individual COVID-19 risk assessments reviewed when a person's needs change?
- 03What screening and protective equipment are required for visitors now?
- 04How often are cleaning schedules reviewed, and how are infection outbreaks managed?
- 05What wider information can you provide about caring, responsiveness and management, which this inspection did not rate?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the report did not assess the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 February 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.
Every inspection of Turnpike Court Residential Care Home
2 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Turnpike Court Residential Care Home →
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Turnpike Court Residential Care Home →
- November 2018GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- 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.