Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a nursing home, run by EMH Care and Support

Fisher Close

1-3 Fisher Close, Grangewood, Chesterfield, S40 2UN

Requires improvementpublished 28 December 2023, 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 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.
The latest report, explained

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.

What inspectors praised
  • 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
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Medicine records

    serious

    Some 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 fixing

    One 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

    serious

    The 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 fixing

    There 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
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Have all 'as required' medicine protocols and medicine profile pages now been completed, and who checks them?
  2. 02How have care plans and risk assessments been updated, particularly for epilepsy and dietary needs?
  3. 03How are accidents and incidents now analysed to identify repeated problems or trends?
  4. 04What audits are now carried out for tissue viability, care plans and other key risks?
  5. 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Fisher Close

3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. December 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Fisher Close

  2. February 2018Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. November 2015Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. July 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. February 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. February 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. April 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. 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.

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 EMH Care and Support Limited

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

Meadow View

Chesterfield, S44
Good
NursingDementia
Rated 6 months agocare home
Nearby

Other care homes near Chesterfield

Bank Close House

Chesterfield, S41 · 1.6 km
Requires improvement
Residential
Rated 4 years agocare home

Chatsworth Lodge

Chesterfield, S40 · 1.7 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 7 years agocare home

Ability Ash Lodge

Chesterfield, S40 · 1.8 km
Good
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home