Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Laurel Bank Residential Care Home

Riseley House Care Home

Riseley Street, Macclesfield, SK10 1BW

Requires improvementpublished 4 April 2025, 16 months ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, May 2024

Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found people at risk from unsafe care, weak oversight and incomplete records.

This was an unannounced inspection over three days. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and reviewed care records, staff files and management records.

The home was rated Inadequate overall. Safe and well-led were rated Inadequate. Effective, caring and responsive were rated Requires Improvement.

Inspectors found risks were not always assessed or updated after falls and accidents. Some safety equipment did not work, medicines were not always managed safely, and cleaning standards were poor. Care records and management checks were incomplete or ineffective.

People and relatives generally spoke positively about staff and the care they received. However, activities were limited, people were not consistently involved in care planning, and the provider had not completed actions promised after the previous inspection.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind staff

    People and relatives generally spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff speaking respectfully and responding sensitively when someone was distressed.

    Staff were considered and caring in their approach.from the report
  • Staffing levels

    Inspectors found staffing levels had improved and were suitable for people's caring needs. The home was no longer in breach of the staffing regulation.

    Staffing levels were appropriate to meet people's caring needs.from the report
  • Healthcare links

    The home worked with the local hospital and health professionals. People could access healthcare, and staff said the GP surgery visited regularly.

    Staff from the GP surgery visited regularly, and good relationships had been built between the surgery and the home.from the report
  • Family contact

    Relatives and friends could visit whenever they wanted. Inspectors saw regular visits during the inspection.

    People were supported to maintain contact with friends and relatives.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • People at risk after falls

    serious

    Care plans and risk assessments were not always updated after accidents or falls. The home could not show that repeated falls were properly analysed or that lessons had been learned.

    Care plans were not always updated following accidents or falls to mitigate further risks to people.from the report
  • Broken safety equipment

    serious

    Some motion sensors and alert buttons used to call for help did not work. The provider had been aware of the problem but had not put it right before the inspection.

    We found a number of motion sensors and alert buttons people used to alert staff they required support were inoperative.from the report
  • Unsafe medicines management

    serious

    A controlled drug was found in an unlocked cupboard and had not been accounted for. Records for prescribed creams had gaps, and risks from flammable creams had not initially been assessed.

    During our checks on medicines we found a controlled drug in an unlocked cupboard which had not been accounted for as missing.from the report
  • Poor management oversight

    serious

    Audits and routine checks did not identify or resolve risks to people, the building and care records. Promised improvements from the previous inspection had not been completed.

    Governance systems remained ineffective.from the report
  • Few activities

    needs fixing

    There was no planned activities programme and people reported having little to keep them occupied. The provider said it was recruiting an activities coordinator.

    People informed us there was little to keep them occupied.from the report
  • Limited involvement in care

    needs fixing

    People and relatives were not consistently involved in care planning or asked how they wanted their care delivered.

    People and their relatives were not involved in care planning.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Which motion sensors and alert buttons were not working, and can you show that all safety equipment is now checked and working?
  2. 02How are falls and accidents now analysed, and how do you make sure care plans are updated afterwards?
  3. 03What changes have been made to medicines storage, controlled drug checks and records for prescribed creams?
  4. 04What planned activities are now available, and how are people's interests and preferences used to decide them?
  5. 05How are people and relatives now involved in care planning and regular reviews?

This was an unannounced inspection prompted partly by concerns about safe care and treatment; inspectors assessed all five key questions and also checked infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 May 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 Riseley House Care Home

2 rated inspections over a year: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.

  1. May 2024Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read what inspectors found at Riseley House Care Home

  2. September 2023Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

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

  3. October 2022

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 October 2022.

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 Laurel Bank Residential Care Home Limited

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

Nearby

Other care homes near Macclesfield

Genesis Care Home

Macclesfield, SK11 · 0.6 km
Good
Residential
Rated 8 years agocare home

Hollins Park

Macclesfield, SK10 · 0.7 km
Not yet rated
NursingDementia
Not yet ratedcare home

Hollins Park

Macclesfield, SK10 · 0.7 km
Outstanding
NursingDementia
Rated 7 years agocare home

Ashfields Care Home

Macclesfield, SK10 · 0.9 km
Requires improvement
Residential
Rated 2 years agocare home

Rowans Care Centre

Macclesfield, SK10 · 0.9 km
Good
NursingDementia
Rated 7 years agocare home