CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cabot House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective infection control, safe medicine systems, suitable staffing and good safeguarding practice. Risk assessments and care records had improved and were kept up to date.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this focused inspection. The report does describe staff supporting people's health needs, communication needs and sensory needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff used individual communication methods and supported people to make everyday choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this focused inspection. Inspectors saw personalised rooms, activities and support based on people's preferences and needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management and quality checks had improved. The home had clearer accountability, regular audits and action plans to address problems.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, although individual choice and communication with some relatives could still improve.
Inspectors visited without notice on 10 and 11 February 2022. They spoke with four people living in the home, seven relatives, five staff and one professional. They also observed people, checked care and medicine records, and reviewed training and management records.
The home supported nine people with complex needs, learning disabilities and autism. Inspectors found that people were treated kindly, supported to communicate in ways that suited them, and helped to make choices about their daily lives. Staff supported people with health appointments, activities, medicines and going out.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in May 2021. Infection control, risk checks and management oversight had improved. The previous breaches of Regulation 12 and Regulation 17 had been addressed, so the home was no longer in breach.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Caring and Well-led were each rated Good. Effective and Responsive were not given a rating in this focused inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw friendly, compassionate interactions. Staff used positive language and respected people's individuality, privacy and dignity.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff who used positive, respectful language which people understood and responded well to.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff supported people to make choices and take part in activities such as baking, using technology, going out and choosing entertainment.
“Staff supported each person to have choice, control and independence.” from the report
Infection control
The home had improved its infection control arrangements. Inspectors saw appropriate use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning and visiting procedures.
“The service used effective infection, prevention and control measures to keep people safe, and staff supported people to follow them.” from the report
Better management oversight
New quality checks, regular audits and clearer responsibilities helped the home identify and address shortfalls.
“Governance processes were now effective and helped to hold staff to account, keep people safe, protect people's rights and provide good quality care and support.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicine records were accurate and audited. Staff were trained and understood people's preferences, including when medicines were prescribed only when needed.
“Medicines were administered discreetly to ensure that people's privacy was maintained. Medicine records were completed accurately and audited regularly.” from the report
Choice in a shared home
minorLiving with eight other people could limit individual choice. Staff worked to manage this by offering different activities in different rooms, but this remains something families should explore.
“Nine people with differing needs and wishes living in one building did compromise individual choice” from the report
Mixed communication with relatives
needs fixingMost relatives felt involved, but some said communication had not been good and relationships with management were not yet comfortable. The managers accepted this needed further work.
“Communication hasn't been great, and we know there's a new manager now.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure my relative has enough individual choice when living with eight other people?
- 02How will you keep relatives informed during the change to the management team?
- 03What regular checks are now carried out on medicines, care plans, finances and the quality of care?
- 04How will you support my relative's particular communication and sensory needs?
- 05How are outings and activities planned now that COVID-19 restrictions have eased?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Caring and Well-led, including infection control and previous Warning Notices; Effective and Responsive were not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 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 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found infection control and management failures despite kind, person-centred care.
Inspectors visited on 11 and 14 May 2021. They spoke with one person, five relatives and seven staff. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The main concerns were about COVID-19 safety. The home did not consistently follow rules on visiting, household bubbles, isolation and infection control. Some staff did not wear face coverings correctly, and risks linked to visits were not always assessed in advance.
The home also had weak checks on quality and safety. Staff recruitment records were not always complete or safely managed, and some staff had not received supervision as often as the home's policy required.
The overall rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The inspection found that staff were kind, people received personalised support, and staffing levels were enough to meet people's needs.
Kind and personal care
Staff were described as kind and compassionate. They knew people's preferences and supported people in a positive, individual way.
“Staff were kind and compassionate and interacted with people in a positive and person-centred way.” from the report
Safe medicines systems
Medicines were given safely and on time by trained staff assessed as competent. Records were audited and completed accurately.
“People received their medicines safely. Staff had received training in administration of medicines and only those staff who were assessed as competent were able to administer these.” from the report
Personal choice and independence
The home supported people to make choices and live as independently as possible. Inspectors found opportunities for meaningful activities and community connections.
“The model of care and setting maximised people's choice, control and independence and measures had been taken by the provider to promote this.” from the report
COVID-19 safety
seriousThe home did not consistently follow government guidance on visiting, isolation, household bubbles and infection control. This exposed people to an increased risk of infection.
“People were exposed to the risk of contracting and spreading COVID-19 because the provider did not always follow government guidelines to keep people in care homes safe.” from the report
Risks were not assessed in time
seriousSome risk assessments for visits and overnight stays were completed after the activity had happened. This meant risks were not properly identified and reduced beforehand.
“This meant risks were not adequately identified and mitigated prior to the activity taking place.” from the report
Unsafe recruitment checks
seriousThe home's recruitment process was not safely managed. Important checks were not reliably overseen by management.
“The provider had failed to ensure staff were recruited safely and in line with their own policy.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousThe home's audits and checks did not identify important problems with infection control, recruitment and staff supervision.
“The provider had not ensured there were adequate systems to monitor and improve the quality and safety of services provided, including risks to the health, safety and welfare of people.” from the report
Some staff supervision was overdue
needs fixingSome staff had not received formal supervision since 2019, despite the home's policy saying staff should receive six sessions a year.
“Records provided to us at inspection showed that some staff had not received formal supervision since 2019.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to visiting, isolation and household bubble arrangements since the inspection?
- 02How do you now assess and record risks before someone visits family or stays away from the home?
- 03What recruitment checks are completed before a member of staff starts work, and who signs them off?
- 04How often does each staff member receive supervision now, and how do you check that this happens?
- 05What evidence can you show that the Warning Notices and action plan issues have been addressed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection published on 13 June 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 November 2021 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 Cabot House
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2021Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodCaring: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 July 2013.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.