CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Camowen
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely, and inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control. They found enough staff to meet people's needs, although staff said sickness-related gaps could make work hectic.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received appropriate support with food, drink, health appointments and changing needs. Consent was managed lawfully, including capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications where needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not looked at during this focused inspection, so no new rating was given in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not looked at during this focused inspection, so no new rating was given in this report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager, effective audits and a positive approach to feedback and improvement. Inspectors confirmed that required notifications were being sent to the CQC.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care, with improvements since the last inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 24 September 2021. Two inspectors spoke with people, a relative, staff and managers. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, complaints and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Good. Inspectors found that infection controls, risk assessments, medicines, staffing, staff training and consent arrangements were managed properly.
The previous inspection had rated the home Requires Improvement and found two breaches of regulation. Inspectors found that the required improvements had been made and that the home was no longer in breach.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including COVID-19, and to support visits safely.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Managing risks
Risks were assessed before people moved in and reviewed when their needs changed. Equipment and emergency plans were also checked.
“Risks were safely managed. People's risks were assessed before they moved into Camowen, including plans to manage and mitigate risks.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and checked as competent to give medicines. The medicines records inspected were completed properly.
“Medication administration records (MAR) we reviewed were completed appropriately.” from the report
Lawful consent
The home had improved how it recorded decisions for people who could not make particular decisions themselves. Relevant representatives' legal authority was documented.
“Where people lacked capacity, decisions were made in their best interests, and documents confirmed this.” from the report
Management checks
Audits were used to monitor care, nutrition, health and safety, and to take action when improvements were needed.
“A robust system of audits measured and monitored the care provided and the service overall.” from the report
Cover for staff sickness
minorInspectors found enough staff on duty, but staff said shifts could become hectic when someone called in sick and extra hours were needed to cover gaps.
“Then it can be hectic if we don't have enough staff. We're trying to get staff to work extra hours if there are gaps” from the report
- 01How do you cover shifts when staff call in sick, and how do you make sure people still receive timely support?
- 02How often are falls risks and care plans reviewed, and when are healthcare professionals contacted?
- 03How do you check that relatives or representatives have the legal authority to make decisions for someone else?
- 04How do you monitor infection risks and arrange visits if there is an outbreak?
- 05What were the previous two regulatory breaches, and how do you check that the improvements remain in place?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 October 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.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but serious gaps in infection control, risk management, consent and oversight.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 12 February 2019. Inspectors spoke with seven people, staff and a visiting professional. They reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records, and observed care.
People generally said they felt safe and praised the staff. Inspectors found kind and respectful care, personalised support, good food choices, activities and access to healthcare. Medicines were managed safely and staffing levels were satisfactory.
However, infection risks were not managed well enough. One person had repeated falls without a timely falls-team referral or an updated falls risk assessment. Consent arrangements were not always lawful, and one Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation had expired.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection in 2016 to Requires Improvement. The home was told to take action for breaches of Regulations 11 and 12, and CQC said it would review the service under its Requires Improvement process.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed warm, patient interactions. People said staff were friendly, considerate and respectful of their privacy.
“People were treated with dignity and respect and involved in all aspects of their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, communication needs, histories and choices. Staff supported people to make decisions and stay in contact with relatives and friends.
“People received personalised care that was tailored to meet their individual needs, preferences and choices.” from the report
Medicines and staffing
Inspectors saw medicines being given safely. Staffing levels were considered sufficient and recruitment checks were generally in place.
“Medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People had menu choices and special diets were catered for. Records showed access to healthcare professionals and appropriate referrals.
“People were supported to live healthy lives and had access to a range of healthcare professionals and services.” from the report
Infection control
seriousInspectors found insufficient action to control infection. A visiting professional was seen during a period when the home was said to be closed to visitors, creating a risk of spreading infection.
“Insufficient action had been taken in the prevention and control of infection.” from the report
Falls risk
seriousOne person had 11 falls over several months, including one causing serious injury. There was no evidence of a falls-team referral and the falls risk assessment had not been updated.
“One person had sustained 11 falls between October 2018 and February 2019, one of which had resulted in a serious injury.” from the report
Lawful consent
seriousSome relatives had agreed to care or treatment without the relevant authority, and there was no evidence of a best-interests meeting in one example. One Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation had also expired.
“Consent to care and treatment was not always gained lawfully.” from the report
Limited planned outings
minorThe home had activities, but did not plan outings. People who wanted to go out relied on friends or relatives.
“Outings were not planned and, if people wanted to go out, they were reliant on friends or relatives.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to infection control since the inspection, including rules for visitors and visiting professionals?
- 02How do you now review falls risks and make sure referrals are made after repeated falls?
- 03How do you check that consent is lawful and that best-interests decisions are recorded?
- 04Has the expired Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation been reapplied for, and what is its current status?
- 05How do your audits now identify safety, consent and notification problems before they affect people?
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and both the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 March 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 Camowen
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 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.