You are here

Cranhill Nursing Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 22 March 2018

Cranhill Nursing Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 31 people. At the time of the inspection there were 22 people living at the home.

We undertook this unannounced focused inspection of Cranhill Nursing Home on 23 February 2018. This inspection was carried out to check that improvements to meet legal requirements planned by the provider after our comprehensive inspection on the 3, 7, 9 August 2017 had been made.

Two breaches of legal requirements were found following the comprehensive inspection. We used our enforcement powers and served a Warning Notice on the provider on 4 December 2017. This was a formal notice which confirmed the provider had to meet the legal requirement by the 29 December 2017 for good governance and the 5 December 2017 for protecting service users from abuse and improper treatment.

We undertook this unannounced focused inspection to check two of the five questions we ask about services: is the service safe and well led? This is because the service was not meeting some legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to this requirement. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Cranhill Nursing Home on our website at

No risks or concerns were identified in the remaining Key Questions through our on going monitoring or during our inspection activity so we did not inspect them. The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for these Key Questions were included in calculating the overall rating in this inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found action had been taken to improve the governance of the service. However there was a lack of accurate monitoring of the suitability of air pressure cushions. We found one person had no clear guidance on what their individual cushion pressure should be set to.

New systems had been implemented for auditing the service, which identifies risks and concerns. There were associated action plans in place to address any shortfalls.

The new system was proactive in spotting risks and concerns early so action could be taken to prevent incidents from occurring.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 22 March 2018

We found improvements had been made to people’s safety and safeguarding referrals were being made when required.


Requires improvement

Updated 6 December 2017

The service was not always effective.

People could be at risk of developing pressure ulcers due to incorrect mattress settings in relation to their care.

People could be at risk due to ineffective systems where people were losing weight.

People could choose where they ate their meals although people who had meals delivered to their rooms had to wait for staff assistance.

Care plans confirmed if people lacked capacity, however where people lacked capacity there was no best interest decision in place relating to their care and support.



Updated 6 December 2017

The service was caring.

People felt staff were kind and caring.

People’s privacy was respected.

People were support to maintain relationships important to them.


Requires improvement

Updated 6 December 2017

The service was not always responsive.

People had care plans that confirmed their likes and dislikes, including what activities they enjoyed, however one care plan did not confirm what support someone might require when they became upset.

People had access to daily newspapers and books although activities were limited due to the home not having an activities co-ordinator.

People were supported to maintain relations with people who were important to them.


Requires improvement

Updated 22 March 2018

We found improvements had been made to the quality of the audits and there were clear actions plans in place. Although there was no system for checking people’s air pressure cushions.