CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 1-2 Canterbury Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The inspection focused on infection prevention and control. Inspectors were assured about testing, PPE, cleaning, visiting arrangements, outbreak management and vaccination requirements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection, although inspectors noted governance arrangements for infection prevention and control.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 2 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, and on whether staffing pressures were affecting care.
Inspectors found regular testing, screening for staff and visitors, suitable personal protective equipment, good cleaning arrangements and safe clinical waste disposal. They were assured that the home was managing infection risks, visits and COVID-19 vaccination requirements in line with guidance.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or a full rating for all five areas of care.
Protective equipment
Inspectors found enough PPE and saw staff using it appropriately when supporting people.
“There were no shortages of PPE and all staff we observed were wearing appropriate PPE when supporting people.” from the report
Clean premises
The premises were visibly clean and orderly, with cleaning schedules covering frequently touched areas.
“The premises were visibly clean and in good order.” from the report
Testing and screening
People, staff and visitors took part in regular testing and screening arrangements to reduce infection risks.
“Staff and people using the service all undertook a regular programme of testing to keep everyone safe and free from infection.” from the report
Family visits
The home was facilitating visits in line with current guidance and keeping relatives informed about changes, including positive COVID-19 cases.
“We saw the provider was facilitating visits for people living in the home in accordance with the current guidance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are staffing pressures affecting people living here now?
- 02How often are people, staff and visitors tested, and what happens after a positive result?
- 03How will you keep our family updated if there is a COVID-19 case or outbreak?
- 04How are visits arranged when infection risks change?
- 05How do you check that PPE, cleaning and infection control procedures continue to be followed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not assess the other areas of care and gave no overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 2022 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.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some maintenance and record-keeping issues being addressed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 October 2019. The inspector spoke with four people, six staff and the registered manager. They observed care, checked four people's records and reviewed information about how the home was run.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were seen as safe, treated kindly and supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities.
The inspectors found some areas of the building were tired and not easy to clean. They also said recent accidents and incidents had not yet been fully analysed. These issues had been identified or acted on during the inspection, and the home remained Good overall.
The previous inspection rating was Good, published in May 2017. The home remained Good at this inspection.
Safe medicines support
Medicines were given as prescribed. Staff received training and regular competency checks, and audits were used to monitor medicines management.
“People's medicines were managed safely. We saw they were administered as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive interactions. Staff knew people well, involved them in decisions and protected their privacy and dignity.
“We found staff were very kind and caring. People we spoke with all told us the staff were always kind and caring.” from the report
Promoting independence
People were supported to develop skills and make choices. Inspectors gave an example of someone being supported to walk with a frame rather than use a wheelchair.
“People's independence was promoted. Staff supported people to be independent.” from the report
Activities and community access
People were supported to take part in social activities, go out and maintain relationships. Inspectors saw people accessing the community during the visit.
“People received appropriate social stimulation that met their needs and regularly accessed the community.” from the report
Tired areas and cleaning
needs fixingSome parts of the home were old and tired and could not always be cleaned effectively. The report says this had been identified and was being addressed.
“The home was not always well maintained, some areas were old and tired and were not able to be effectively cleaned.” from the report
Learning from incidents
needs fixingThere had been an increase in incidents in the weeks before the inspection. These had not been fully reviewed for patterns or trends, although the manager acted immediately.
“These had not been fully analysed to show trends and patterns to reduce risks.” from the report
One care plan needed updating
minorOne person's care plan did not fully describe their needs. The report says this was corrected immediately after inspectors raised it.
“One person's plan did not fully reflect their needs, this was discussed with the registered manager and addressed immediately.” from the report
Restricted kitchen access
minorIn one house, access to the kitchen was restricted because of a risk. The report says this was intended to be temporary and was being addressed.
“In one house the access to the kitchen was restricted, this had some impact on people but was required in the short term due to risk.” from the report
- 01Which areas of the home were old or difficult to clean, and what work has been completed since the inspection?
- 02How are accidents and incidents now reviewed for patterns, and what changes have been made as a result?
- 03How do you check that each person's care plan fully reflects their current needs and choices?
- 04Why was kitchen access restricted in one house, and has normal access now been restored?
- 05How are people supported to develop independence, access the community and maintain relationships?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the care, support, accommodation and management of the home across all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 November 2019 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 1-2 Canterbury Close
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
97 live-in carers within about an hour of Rotherham
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.