Marlcroft
Warrington, WA3
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home
CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Community Care Matters
Anderson Close
6 Anderson Close, Padgate, Warrington, WA2 0PG
Goodpublished 13 January 2024, 2 years ago
Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.
The five questions inspectors ask
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood their needs. Inspectors found some inconsistency in risk information and unclear guidance for some medicines used when needed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. Staff had training and supervision, and the home supported people's health, diet, choices and independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in this inspection. Inspectors observed respectful, positive relationships and person-centred support.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in this inspection. Inspectors found that activities and support were tailored to people's individual needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had visible management, regular audits and systems to monitor care and records. Families and staff were given opportunities to share their views.
The latest report, explained
What inspectors found, January 2024
Anderson Close rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some records needing clearer and more consistent information.
Inspectors visited on 7 and 12 December 2023. They spoke with three people living in the home, two family members and four staff. They reviewed care records, staff recruitment files, policies and checks on how the home was run.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Good. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff knew them well, and people were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities and community life.
There were some recording issues. Risk assessments did not always give consistent information about ways to reduce distress. Guidance for some medicines used when needed was not always clear, although the manager acted on this during the inspection. Records did not always show the involvement of family members or advocates in decisions where a person lacked capacity.
The Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection to Good. Earlier recommendations about keeping risk reviews together and improving mental capacity records had been acted on.
What inspectors praised
Staff knew people well
The home had a consistent staff team. Staff could recognise when people were distressed and used appropriate strategies to reduce further distress.
“Staff knew the people they supported well and were able to identify when a person was distressed” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, prepare food and drinks, join activities and stay involved in their local community.
“Independence was promoted to prevent social isolation, and to ensure people being supported were integrated into the local community.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, culture, religion and lifestyle choices. Staff worked with health and social care professionals when needed.
“Care plans were personalised and included involvement from other professionals.” from the report
Good management and family contact
The manager had oversight of the service, completed audits and supported staff. Families were actively involved and kept updated about their relative's care.
“Family members were actively involved in their loved one's care.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
Risk information was not always consistent
needs fixingRisk assessments were updated regularly, but information about ways to reduce distress did not always match across records. Inspectors recommended that the provider review this.
“Individual risks were assessed and updated regularly, however there was inconsistency in information about de-escalation strategies.” from the report
Some medicine guidance was unclear
needs fixingInstructions were not always clear for medicines given when needed, such as pain relief. The manager acted on the recommendation during the first inspection day.
“There was not always clear guidance on how to administer medicine to those people who received as and when required medicines” from the report
Records did not always show family or advocate involvement
needs fixingWhere a person was assessed as unable to make a decision, records did not always show that family members or advocates had been involved. The manager said records would be updated.
“records did not always evidence involvement of advocates or family member when a person was assessed as lacking capacity.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure de-escalation strategies are recorded consistently in every risk assessment?
- 02How do you decide when to give medicines used when needed, and where is the guidance recorded?
- 03How do you record the involvement of family members or advocates when a person cannot make a decision themselves?
- 04How will you check that staff have read and understood updates to care plans?
- 05How are families kept updated about their relative's care and activities?
This inspection covered Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not separately rated, and the report says the inspection was prompted by a review of information held about the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 January 2024 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.
The story over the years
Every inspection of Anderson Close
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 November 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.
Another option
Or stay at home with a private carer
Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.
Same provider
Other services run by Community Care Matters Limited
1 other service on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.
Good
Nearby
Other care homes near Warrington
Padgate House
Warrington, WA2 · 1.1 km
Nursing
Rated 6 years agocare home
Heath Lodge
Warrington, WA1 · 1.1 km
Residential
Rated 6 years agocare home
Marlcroft
Warrington, WA3 · 1.3 km
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home
Woolston House
Warrington, WA1 · 1.4 km
NursingDementia
Rated 5 months agocare home
Lilford Court
Warrington, WA3 · 1.7 km
Residential
Rated 2 years agoReport explained
Sandycroft
Warrington, WA3 · 2.5 km
Residential
Rated 5 years agocare home