CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Camellots Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some sensory assessments and general risk assessments were out of date. Fire doors had been wedged open, and PRN medicine guidance and medicine plans were not always complete or current.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- People received healthcare and staff had relevant training, but some support plans lacked practical skills teaching and people were not always supported to take part in cooking, shopping and other activities.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Inspectors reported that people and relatives described the care as kind and compassionate.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The report does not give a current rating for Responsive.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality and risk monitoring systems did not reliably identify problems with fire safety, medicines, maintenance or person-centred support. This resulted in a breach of Regulation 17.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Camellots Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care but risks, medicines records and quality checks were not always managed well.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. One inspector spoke with staff, relatives and visiting health professionals, observed care and checked records, medicines, staffing, infection control and the home’s systems.
People were generally safe, treated kindly and supported by staff who knew them well. Staff helped people access healthcare, managed incidents appropriately and supported people with medicines in line with their wishes.
However, some risks had not been reviewed properly. Fire doors had been wedged open, some medicines information was out of date, and people did not always have enough opportunities to build independence through everyday activities.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection, published in 2017, to Requires Improvement. The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit.
Kind staff
People and relatives said staff were kind and compassionate. Inspectors saw relaxed interactions and staff who had time to support and talk with people.
“People and their relatives told us they received kind and compassionate care.” from the report
Staffing and safeguarding
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse, and relatives said their loved ones felt safe.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. We observed staff were prompt in supporting people who needed assistance.” from the report
Health support
People were supported to attend healthcare appointments and staff had training for specific health needs. Health professionals were involved in people’s care.
“People were supported to access the health care services they needed.” from the report
Medicine administration
Although medicine records had weaknesses, inspectors observed medicines being given carefully by trained staff who understood people’s needs and preferences.
“The staff member was knowledgeable about the medicines they were administering and demonstrated an understanding of the person's needs and preferences.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable infection prevention and control arrangements, including safe visiting and use of protective equipment.
“We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report
Fire safety checks
seriousFire doors had been wedged open, so they would not automatically close during a fire. The provider arranged automatic closures after inspectors raised the issue.
“We found fire doors wedged open, this would mean they would not automatically close in the event of fire.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousPRN medicine instructions were missing before the inspection, and medicine plans were mostly out of date. The provider corrected these issues after inspectors raised them, but people had been at risk of harm.
“People could not always be assured they received their medicines safely in accordance with the prescriber's instructions.” from the report
Risk assessments
needs fixingSome sensory and general risk assessments had not been reviewed when people’s needs changed or for more than a year.
“General risk assessments were in place; however, some had not been reviewed for over a year.” from the report
Independence and daily life
needs fixingStaff often completed cooking, cleaning and laundry rather than helping people take part. This limited opportunities for people to build skills and confidence.
“Staff mostly carried out tasks rather than engaged people and encouraged independence” from the report
Quality monitoring
seriousThe provider’s checks did not identify several safety, maintenance and medicines problems. CQC found this placed people at risk of harm and recorded a breach.
“The provider had failed to establish adequate systems and processes to assess and improve the quality and safety of the service provided” from the report
- 01What actions have you completed to make sure fire doors cannot be wedged open, and how are fire safety checks now recorded?
- 02How do you check that PRN instructions and medicine plans are complete, current and shared with staff?
- 03How often are people’s sensory assessments and general risk assessments reviewed after their needs change?
- 04How will staff help each person take part in cooking, shopping, cleaning or other activities that build independence?
- 05What progress has been made on the action plan requested by CQC, and can we see how improvements are being monitored?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 March 2023 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, February 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with effective management.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 25 October 2017. One inspector observed care, spoke with people and staff, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, rotas, training records and management records.
The home supported up to eight people with learning disabilities and/or mental health and physical needs. Inspectors found that risks were managed, staffing was sufficient, medicines were handled safely and staff had suitable training.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans were written in an accessible way, people were involved in decisions, and activities and support were adapted to their interests and abilities.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The home was rated Good at its previous inspection and remained Good.
Safe staffing and risk management
Inspectors found enough suitable staff on duty and saw that risks such as health needs, mobility and emergency evacuation had been assessed.
“There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff knew people well and respected their choices, privacy and daily routines.
“Throughout the inspection, we observed patient, kind and humorous interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Personalised communication
Care plans were accessible and included communication passports, preferences, important relationships and day and night-time needs.
“Care plans were written in an accessible format and, where they were able, people signed their care plans to show their agreement.” from the report
Support for independence
People helped plan activities and some were supported to travel, shop or go out independently.
“Whilst people were supported by staff to ensure their care needs were met, people were encouraged to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Effective oversight
The home used audits and feedback to monitor areas such as medicines, consent, health and safety, food hygiene and infection control.
“A range of systems had been put in place to monitor and develop the service and these were effective in driving continuous improvement.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure staffing remains sufficient at weekends, when staffing levels are lower?
- 02What is the current position of the two liberty safeguard applications that were awaiting a decision at the inspection?
- 03How will you involve my relative in reviewing their care plan and communicating their choices?
- 04What activities, outings and opportunities for independence would be available for my relative?
- 05How would you respond if my relative or our family wanted to raise a concern or make a complaint?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 2018 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 Camellots Care Home
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 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
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.