42 Beeston Drive
Winsford, CW7
Residential
Rated 22 months agocare home
CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by iMap Centre
Danebank
59 Danebank Avenue, Crewe, CW2 8AE
Requires improvementpublished 21 February 2024, 2 years ago
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
The five questions inspectors ask
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some safety checks had gaps and had not identified problems such as fire door repairs and unsecured hazardous chemicals. Medicines were generally managed safely, but some 'as required' medicine instructions and one cream-related risk assessment needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Best-interest decisions and mental capacity assessments were not always recorded or reviewed. The premises were not always clean or properly maintained, and some staff had incomplete training or had not received annual appraisals.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for Caring. People appeared comfortable, and relatives said staff were kind and caring.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for Responsive. Staff supported people's communication, sensory and nutritional needs, but relatives wanted more involvement in care reviews.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management systems did not identify or deal with problems quickly enough, and records were not always accurate. The home had been without a registered manager for several weeks, although a new manager was in post and intended to register.
The latest report, explained
What inspectors found, February 2024
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care but serious gaps in consent, premises, records and management.
Inspectors visited on four days in January 2024. They spoke with family members and staff, observed care, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records. Three people were living in the home at the time.
People generally appeared comfortable and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Staff knew people well, supported access to healthcare and worked with other professionals. However, some restrictions and decisions were not properly recorded, parts of the building needed repair and cleaning, and staff training and appraisals were incomplete.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. This was worse than the previous Good rating, published in September 2018. The report identified four legal breaches.
What inspectors praised
Staff knew people well
There was generally a consistent permanent team, and staff understood the people they supported.
“generally people were supported by a consistent staff team and the permanent staff knew people well.” from the report
Kind and person-centred care
People appeared at ease with staff. Managers promoted an approach that valued people's individuality.
“They promoted a person-centred caring culture and staff valued people's individuality.” from the report
Healthcare support
Staff worked with health and social care professionals and helped people attend appointments and check-ups.
“People were supported to access health care services as needed.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
Consent and least restrictive care
seriousBest-interest decisions were not always recorded for people who lacked capacity. The report also found that some restrictions were not properly reviewed.
“Staff had not always clearly recorded assessments and best interest decisions for people they assessed as lacking mental capacity for certain decisions.” from the report
Repairs, cleaning and safety checks
seriousA particular area needed significant repairs and cleaning. Two broken windows had been boarded up for more than eight weeks before new glazing was ordered.
“Significant repairs due to damage, along with cleaning was required within a particular area of the service.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousAudits and other systems did not identify or resolve all the problems found by inspectors. Records, including some DoLS information, were not always accurate or up to date.
“The provider did not have effective systems to ensure the quality and safety of the service and that accurate records were being kept.” from the report
Staff training and infection control
needs fixingSome relevant training and annual appraisals had not been completed. Staff were not always following current guidance on using protective equipment, and more cleaning was needed.
“Staff were not fully aware of and/or following aspects of current infection control guidance.” from the report
Missed notifications
seriousThe provider had not notified CQC about at least three events that should have been reported, including an allegation of abuse or an incident reported to police.
“there had been at least 3 events which CQC should have been notified about but had not been.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
- 01What has been done to record and review best-interest decisions and make sure restrictions are the least restrictive option?
- 02Have the damaged windows, fire doors and other maintenance and cleaning problems now been fully fixed?
- 03How do you check that all staff have completed role-relevant training and annual appraisals?
- 04What has changed in the system for checking records, DoLS conditions, audits and other quality and safety issues?
- 05How are relatives now involved in planning and regularly reviewing their family member's care?
The inspection looked at the care and premises and gave ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led; the report does not give separate ratings for Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 February 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 Danebank
2 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 August 2017.
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 iMap Centre Limited
2 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.
Requires improvement
Wood Cottage
Crewe, CW2
Residential
Not yet ratedcare home
Nearby
Other care homes near Crewe
Wistaston House
Crewe, CW2 · 0.7 km
Residential
Rated 2 years agoReport explained
Belong Crewe Care Village
Crewe, CW2 · 1.1 km
NursingDementia
Rated 8 years agocare home
Station House
Crewe, CW2 · 1.2 km
NursingDementia
Rated 6 months agocare home
Station House
Crewe, CW2 · 1.2 km
NursingDementia
Rated 6 months agocare home
Telford Court Nursing Home
Crewe, CW1 · 1.3 km
NursingDementia
Rated 18 months agocare home
Alexandra Mill
Crewe, CW2 · 1.8 km
NursingDementia
Not yet ratedcare home