CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Ivolve Group

Eversley

10 Eversley Park, Chester, CH2 2AJ

Requires improvementpublished 16 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; Inspectors found unresolved fire risks, including concerns about the external fire escape and missing risk assessments. Staffing levels, recruitment, medicines, infection control and safeguarding systems were otherwise described positively.
Effective?: Good; This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
Caring?: Good; This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
Responsive?: Good; This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
Well-led?: Requires improvement; Management checks had not identified or dealt with fire safety, staff supervision, training, one-to-one hours and maintenance issues. The home did not have a registered manager, although some improvements were started during the inspection.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2024

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found fire-safety and management checks were not reliable, although care was tailored and people spoke positively about staff.

This was a focused inspection on 11 and 24 January 2024. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.

Inspectors found outstanding fire risks, including an external fire escape that was not well maintained and missing risk assessments. They also found that checks on staff training, supervision, one-to-one hours and repairs had not been effective.

People received personalised care and staff knew them well. People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Medicines, infection control, safeguarding and mental capacity arrangements were found to be working safely.

The overall rating changed from Good at the last inspection in 2017 to Requires Improvement. The provider breached regulations about safe care and treatment and good governance. The home took some action during the inspection, but CQC requested an action plan and will monitor progress.

What inspectors praised

Personalised support
Care was tailored to people's needs and wishes. People and relatives were involved in care planning and reviews.
“People received care and support that was tailored to their individual needs and wishes.” from the report
Positive staff relationships
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors observed caring and supportive interactions.
“We observed caring and supportive interactions between people living at the service and staff.” from the report
Medicines and safeguarding
People received medicines as prescribed, with accurate records. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse, and infection control practices were followed.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and accurate records were maintained.” from the report

What inspectors were concerned about

Fire safety risks
serious
Inspectors found fire risks that had not been dealt with, including concerns about the external fire escape and the lack of a risk assessment for its use.
“There was no risk assessment in place for the use of and access to this fire exit.” from the report
Weak management checks
serious
The home's monitoring systems had not identified or resolved important issues with fire safety, staff supervision, training, one-to-one hours and maintenance.
“The governance systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service was not always effective.” from the report
Training and supervision records
needs fixing
Some staff had not received supervision as often as the provider's policy required. Training records also had low uptake in safeguarding and other topics.
“Some staff had told us they didn't have much supervision in the last 12 months.” from the report
Outdoor areas and repairs
needs fixing
The garden areas needed maintenance, and ongoing maintenance was one of the areas not identified by the provider's quality monitoring.
“The garden areas were in need of maintenance to help improve and enhance living areas for people.” from the report

Questions to ask them, based on this report

01What has now been done to fix the fire risks and maintain the external fire escape?
02Can you show us the current risk assessment and evacuation arrangements for each person?
03How are you checking that staff receive the required supervision and training?
04How do you record and monitor each person's one-to-one hours?
05What is the timetable for garden maintenance and other outstanding repairs?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried over from the last inspection in 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 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 Eversley

3 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

February 2024Requires improvementcurrent rating
Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Eversley →
February 2022Inspected but not rated
Safe: Inspected but not rated
We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk
September 2017Goodstayed Good
Safe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read this report on cqc.org.uk
August 2015Good
Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read this report on cqc.org.uk
July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
Read this report on cqc.org.uk
December 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 December 2012.

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.

About live-in care How PrimeCarers works

Same provider

Other services run by Heathcotes Care Limited

51 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.