CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Calvert House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, recruitment, risk management and infection control were considered safe, and a weakness in medicines stock checks had been addressed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had assessed needs, suitable care plans and trained staff. Inspectors noted repetitive menus with limited nutritional value, which was being reviewed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful. People were supported to communicate, make decisions, maintain their dignity and work towards greater independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reflected people's preferences, histories and goals. Activities and visits were arranged, although some staff felt there were not enough activities because of limited funds.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had clear values, quality checks and systems for learning from incidents. Staff said they felt supported, and the new manager had addressed issues involving medicines and people's money.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but meals and activities needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 and 17 July 2019. One inspector spoke with people and staff, and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training, meetings and audits.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good safeguarding arrangements and person-centred support. People were treated with kindness and supported to make choices and build independence.
There were some areas being addressed. Menus were repetitive and had limited nutritional value. Some staff said there were not enough activities because money was limited. The manager had already addressed earlier weaknesses in medicines stock checks.
Least restrictive support
The home used positive behaviour support and did not use restraint, seclusion or segregation. Staff supported people to make choices in the least restrictive way.
“The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found caring staff who understood people's needs and supported dignity, equality and independence.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff who understood how to support people respectfully.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records reflected people's histories, preferences and communication needs. People helped set their own goals and decide how to spend their time.
“People continued to receive personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
The home had enough staff and completed the necessary recruitment checks before staff started work.
“Staff had been recruited safely with all necessary checks being completed before they started work.” from the report
Repetitive menus
needs fixingMenus were repetitive and had limited nutritional value. The manager said they were being reviewed, but the report does not confirm the outcome.
“Menus appeared to be repetitive, the manager told us they were under review at the time of inspection to offer people good nutrition.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingSome staff felt there were not enough activities because available funds were mainly used for staff expenses. One person also said they would like to go out more.
“Some staff felt there were not enough activities for people because there were limited funds available and these were mainly used to cover staff expenses.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the menus since inspectors found meals repetitive and of limited nutritional value?
- 02How many activities and outings are now available, and how are they funded?
- 03Has the manager now been registered with the CQC?
- 04How are medicines stock checks carried out now, following the weakness identified by the manager?
- 05How will my relative be supported to build independence or move towards more independent accommodation, if that is their goal?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the previous overall and individual ratings were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 September 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.
What inspectors found, January 2017
Calvert House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 31 October 2016. One inspector reviewed information held by the CQC, spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and the manager, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training, staffing and the building.
The inspectors found people were safe and supported by enough suitably trained staff. Medicines, equipment, infection control and emergency arrangements were managed safely. People received suitable food and drinks, healthcare support and care that reflected their needs and choices.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives gave positive feedback. The previous inspection on 4 July 2014 found the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations inspected at that time.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff, with a suitable mix of skills. People received personal care without being rushed and could access the community with staff support.
“We found sufficient staffing levels were in place to provide support people required.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed to be patient, compassionate and attentive. They respected people's privacy, dignity and choices.
“We observed staff supporting people with their care during the inspection visit. We saw they were kind, caring, patient and attentive.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes, needs and goals. People were supported with activities, holidays and interests in the community.
“People participated in a range of activities and were enabled to follow individual interests.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were ordered, stored, given and recorded safely. Staff who administered them had competency checks.
“We found medication procedures at the home were safe.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager carried out audits and used an action plan when issues were found. People were also asked for their views through surveys and reviews.
“Quality assurance was checked upon and action was taken to make improvements, where applicable.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and review my relative's care plan if their needs or behaviour changed?
- 02What support is available for people with acquired brain injuries, communication difficulties or mental health conditions?
- 03If my relative may lack capacity, what decisions are covered by a best interests process and how are family members involved?
- 04How are staffing levels and staff skills matched to the needs of people living at the home?
- 05What activities and community opportunities could be arranged around my relative's interests?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions; inspectors reviewed one person's care records and spoke with two people living at the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 2017 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 Calvert House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 June 2014.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.