CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Camplehaye Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, safe visiting, testing, protective equipment and plans for staffing pressures. The question was inspected but no rating was given.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Camplehaye Residential Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, visiting arrangements and staffing plans during COVID-19.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 23 February 2022. Inspectors gave one day’s notice and looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors found good practice. Visitors were asked for proof of a negative lateral flow test, visits were booked, and the home had enough protective equipment. Staff followed guidance on protective equipment and hand washing, and enhanced cleaning was in place.
Inspectors were also assured that the home had up-to-date infection control policies, testing arrangements and plans to manage outbreaks. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not provide a new quality rating.
Infection control
Inspectors found that staff followed protective equipment and hand-washing guidance, with enhanced cleaning in place.
“Staff were adhering to PPE guidance and practices. Hand- washing facilities, and hand washing guidance was available around the home.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home was enabling visits in line with the guidance in force at the time. Visitors had to provide proof of a negative lateral flow test.
“The provider was enabling visits for people living in the home in accordance with current guidance.” from the report
Supplies and planning
There was enough protective equipment, and the home had plans to reduce the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures and outbreaks.
“The providers recruitment and contingency planning helped ensure staffing levels remained safe in the event of a COVID-19 outbreak in the service.” from the report
Up-to-date policies
The home's COVID-19 policies, procedures and risk assessments were up to date.
“Policies, procedures and risk assessments relating to COVID-19 were up to date.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits arranged now, and what checks or restrictions apply?
- 02How do you make sure there is enough staff if there is an outbreak or staff absence?
- 03How do you check that staff use protective equipment and follow hand-washing procedures?
- 04How do you arrange testing and access to health services for residents now?
- 05What were the home's ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led at the previous full inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not assess the other key questions or provide an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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, July 2019
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found that safe care still Requires Improvement because some records and emergency access arrangements were not reliable.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 8 July 2019. The inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, audits and safety checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that risks were usually assessed and medicines were managed safely, but some monitoring records were incomplete and access to some emergency door keys needed improving.
Four people said they sometimes waited for help after using their call bells. Recorded response times ranged from two to 12 minutes. The home was clean, staff recruitment checks were completed, and managers monitored quality and safety.
This inspection only checked Safe and Well-led. The other three areas were not inspected, so their previous ratings were carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
Medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were being managed safely.
“The home continued to manage people's medicines safely.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and staff used protective clothing to help reduce infection risks.
“The home was found to be clean, tidy and odour free.” from the report
Management checks
Managers carried out regular audits and used them to identify and address improvements.
“The management team completed a full range of quality audits on a monthly basis and we saw that actions were identified and addressed to bring about improvements.” from the report
Safe recruitment
The required recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“Recruitment practices remained safe with the required checks, including a disclosure and barring check (police check), being carried out prior to staff commencing employment.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingSome records used to check whether people received planned care were not fully completed. This included fluid intake and repositioning records.
“Some documentation used to monitor people's safe care had not always been fully completed, for example, people's fluid intake and when their position was changed to reduce the risk of skin breakdown.” from the report
Emergency door access
seriousSome bedroom doors needed a key, but access to master keys was not good enough for emergencies.
“Some improvements were required to the access of master keys to unlock some people's doors should this be necessary.” from the report
Call bell waits
needs fixingFour people said they had to wait for help after using their call bells. Recorded response times ranged from two to 12 minutes.
“Records showed times varied from two to 12 minutes to answer people's call bells.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure fluid intake and repositioning records are completed every time?
- 02Can staff now access every master key quickly if a locked bedroom door must be opened in an emergency?
- 03What are the current call bell response times, and how are delays investigated?
- 04How is staffing adjusted when people's needs increase or when several people need urgent help?
- 05What improvements have been made since Safe was last rated Requires Improvement?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 July 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 Camplehaye Residential Home
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- January 2016Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 November 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.