CQC report explained · a nursing home, run by EMH Care and Support
Fisher Close
1-3 Fisher Close, Grangewood, Chesterfield, S40 2UN
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some records for medicines were incomplete, including guidance for medicines given when needed and medicine profile pages. One care plan did not clearly describe current epilepsy and dietary risks, although this was addressed during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not given a rating in the report. Inspectors found that mental capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and appropriate applications for restrictions were in place or being reviewed.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not given a rating in the report. Staff were described as person-centred, and people were supported with their social and emotional wellbeing as well as personal care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not given a rating in the report. Person-centred guidance was in place, including plans for times when people became distressed, and people were supported to access education, communities and relationships.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Governance systems did not always identify and fix problems promptly. Audits did not consistently cover important risks, and accident and incident information was not analysed to identify patterns.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Fisher Close was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks in medicines records and quality oversight.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 5 December 2023. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed communal areas, and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicine records and management records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because some medicine guidance and risk records were incomplete. Well-led was also rated Requires Improvement because quality checks did not always lead to prompt action, and accidents and incidents were not analysed well enough.
There were positive findings too. Staff knew people well, there were enough staff, the home was clean and safe, and people and relatives generally felt listened to. The provider was required to send an action plan, and CQC said it would monitor progress.
Staffing and safety
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including one-to-one support for community access. Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and relatives said staff were available.
“The service had enough staff, including for one-to-one support for people to access the community.” from the report
Safeguarding
People were protected from avoidable harm because staff understood safeguarding responsibilities and worked with other agencies when needed.
“People were kept safe from avoidable harm because staff knew them well and understood how to protect them from abuse.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousSome people did not have clear protocols for medicines given when needed. Medicine profile pages were also missing for some people, creating a risk of errors or unwanted effects.
“Records relating to medicine were not always in place as required to ensure people received their medicines safely and appropriately.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
needs fixingOne person's care plan did not clearly describe risks linked to epilepsy and dietary needs. Inspectors said this was addressed immediately, while other care plans were still being reviewed.
“One person's care plan was yet to be reviewed, and we found it did not contain consistent, or clear information on risks relating to epilepsy or their dietary requirements.” from the report
Weak quality oversight
seriousThe provider had identified some problems in an earlier audit but had not fully fixed them. Important areas were not always audited, and accident and incident information was not used to identify themes and trends.
“Governance systems were not effective at driving improvement. This placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Management arrangements
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post at the inspection. The manager was completing their CQC registration.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01Have all 'as required' medicine protocols and medicine profile pages now been completed, and who checks them?
- 02How have care plans and risk assessments been updated, particularly for epilepsy and dietary needs?
- 03How are accidents and incidents now analysed to identify repeated problems or trends?
- 04What audits are now carried out for tissue viability, care plans and other key risks?
- 05Has the manager completed CQC registration, and who is responsible for oversight until then?
The report gives ratings for Safe and Well-led only; it does not give ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 December 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.
Every inspection of Fisher Close
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 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. 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.
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.
Other services run by EMH Care and Support Limited
2 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.