CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Candover House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found appropriate risk assessments, safeguarding procedures, safe recruitment and enough staff. They found one missed and unrecorded morning tablet and said the manager would investigate and take action.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and supported people with eating, drinking and healthcare. Some staff did not receive supervision as regularly as planned, and inspectors made a recommendation about this.
- Caring?
- Good
- Relatives described staff as caring, and inspectors observed respectful interactions. Staff supported people to make choices, maintain privacy and live as independently as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and reviewed regularly. People had activities suited to their interests, and the complaints procedure was available in easy-read and pictorial formats.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager used audits and worked with health and social care professionals to monitor and improve the service. Staff and relatives gave positive feedback about the management.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a one-off medicines error and some gaps in staff supervision.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 17 April 2019. One inspector spoke with one person, three relatives, two care staff and the registered manager. They also reviewed two care records, three staff files, audits and other records.
The home provided personal care for six people with a learning disability. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough staff, safe recruitment and safeguarding arrangements. They also found that staff supported people with healthcare, food, activities, choices and independence.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. There was a one-off error when a morning tablet was not given or recorded. Inspectors also recommended improving the regularity of staff supervision.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs safely. Recruitment checks and induction arrangements were also in place.
“There were sufficient staffing levels to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed communicating respectfully and offering reassurance. Relatives also described the care positively.
“Staff communicated with people in a respectful manner and we observed people were confident approaching staff for support and reassurance.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences and support needs. Staff encouraged choice, independence and involvement in daily activities.
“People's care plans were detailed with information on how to support them with personal care in a way which met their preferences.” from the report
Regular safety checks
The home carried out a range of checks covering areas such as medicines, fire safety, infection control and the environment.
“Regular assessments and audits of aspects of the service including environmental risk assessments, monthly food and safety audits, infection control, fire risk assessments, medication audits and health and safety audits had taken place to ensure the service was safe.” from the report
Missed medicine
needs fixingA staff member forgot to give and record one person's morning tablet on the inspection day. The manager said this would be investigated and lessons would be used to prevent similar errors.
“However, we found a one-off error where a member of staff forgot to administer and record a morning tablet for one person on the day of the inspection.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingSome staff did not receive supervision as regularly as planned. The manager was reviewing the system and considering delegation to senior staff.
“However, some staff did not receive supervision regularly as planned.” from the report
Confidence to raise concerns
minorOne relative did not feel confident raising concerns with the manager. The manager said they would consider ways to allow concerns to be raised anonymously.
“However, one relative told us they did not feel confident raising concerns with the registered manager.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made since the missed morning tablet to prevent medicines being missed or not recorded?
- 02How often do staff now receive supervision, and how is this checked?
- 03How can relatives raise concerns anonymously if they do not feel comfortable speaking directly to the manager?
- 04How are people and their representatives involved in reviewing care plans and activities?
- 05How do you make sure staff understand each person's communication, health and support needs?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the care home and all five CQC questions; the previous inspection in September 2016 was also rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 May 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, October 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with strong management and community activities.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 September 2016. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, reviewed care and staff records, checked rotas and policies, and toured the home. Six people were living there, which was its maximum capacity.
Inspectors rated the home Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable risk assessments, trained staff and respectful care. People were supported to make choices, attend health appointments, take part in activities and use community facilities.
The home had a hands-on manager, regular audits and good links with relatives, advocates, healthcare professionals and universities. The report also says the provider information return was not received because the form had not arrived in time. This did not prevent the inspection from being completed.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient to keep people safe and meet their needs. The rota showed six care staff during the day and two waking staff at night.
“The service also provided enough staff to ensure that people were well cared for and were safe.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff were patient and gave people time to make choices. Inspectors saw privacy and dignity being respected during care.
“We observed staff treated people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Individual activities
People had activities based on their interests, both at home and in the community. Staff supported people with outings, holidays and access to community facilities.
“People had care that was centred on their own individual needs.” from the report
Active management
The manager was described as approachable and involved. The home used audits, feedback and meetings to check the quality of care.
“The registered manager had a comprehensive quality assurance system in place.” from the report
Working with researchers
The home worked with universities on epilepsy and positive behaviour projects. Inspectors noted that staff had already seen benefits from the new approaches, although the studies were not finished.
“The registered manager was outstanding in the ways they worked with healthcare professionals and universities which undertook research activities in areas related to the service.” from the report
Use of agency staff
minorA relative said the only times they might be concerned were when agency staff were used. The home said agency staff were checked, trained, supervised and, where possible, used regularly so they knew people's needs.
“They told us the only odd times they could be concerned were when agency staff were used.” from the report
- 01How often are agency staff used, and how do you make sure they know each person's needs?
- 02What progress has been made with the epilepsy and positive behaviour research projects?
- 03How are people and relatives involved when care plans and risk assessments are reviewed?
- 04How do you make sure people can choose activities, holidays and community outings that suit their interests and needs?
- 05How are medicines checked, including ordering, administration, storage and disposal?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 October 2016 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 Candover House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Havering
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 £1,230 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.