CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Cann House Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Cann House Care Home was rated Good after inspectors found safer care and better management, with a minor medicines recording issue addressed during the visit.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 31 October 2022. Inspectors checked Safe and Well-led. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, reviewed care and medicines records, and observed care and infection control.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found improved risk assessments, enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable infection control and systems to protect people from abuse. People said they felt safe and received their medicines as prescribed.
The home had improved since its previous Requires Improvement rating in October 2021. The report says it was no longer in breach of regulations. However, the medicines records for some people were not always completed accurately when new stock arrived. This was brought to the manager's attention and addressed straight away.
The other three areas were not inspected during this visit. Their previous ratings were used with the new findings to calculate the overall Good rating.
Improved risk management
Individual risk assessments covered areas such as epilepsy, choking and falls. Equipment and emergency evacuation plans were in place where needed.
“Improvements had been made in how risks to people's safety and well-being were assessed, monitored and managed.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and found that recruitment checks had been completed safely.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew people well and understood how to protect them from avoidable harm.
“People were kept safe from avoidable harm or abuse because staff knew people well and understood how to protect them from avoidable harm.” from the report
Better oversight
The home had established audits covering care planning, risks, the environment, staff skills and incidents. This gave managers better oversight of the service.
“Audits were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff expressed confidence in the management team. Feedback was collected through surveys, questionnaires and meetings.
“People, their relatives and staff expressed confidence in the management team.” from the report
Medicines records
minorSome medicines administration records did not accurately show new medicine stock received. The manager was told and dealt with the issue straight away.
“We found some people's Medicine Administration Records (MAR) were not always completed accurately to reflect new medicine stock received.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicines administration records accurately reflect new stock?
- 02How are changes in a person's risks, such as falls, choking or epilepsy, recorded and shared with staff?
- 03What quality checks are carried out regularly, and how are families told about any problems found?
- 04What are the current ratings and findings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected in this visit?
- 05How do you involve relatives in feedback, care planning and decisions about a person's support?
This was a focused, unannounced inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 November 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, October 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care but unsafe risk management and weak quality checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 2 August 2021. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staffing and management information.
People and relatives were mostly positive about the care. Inspectors found enough staff, regular medicines, kind and respectful support, good training, suitable food and activities, and prompt access to health services.
There were important safety gaps. Some people did not have suitable plans for seizures or catheter care, and repositioning records for people at risk of pressure sores were not used consistently. Quality checks had not found these problems.
The overall rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe and well-led were Requires Improvement, while effective, caring and responsive were Good. The provider must send an action plan and will be monitored by CQC.
Enough staff
Inspectors saw enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff responded promptly when people needed support.
“We observed, and staffing rotas confirmed, there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and treated them with warmth, dignity and respect. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
“We observed staff were kind and compassionate and showed they had formed a strong relationship with people and knew them well.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences and routines. Staff shared updates through handovers and meetings.
“People received personalised care and support specific to their needs, preferences and routines.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People had flexible activities and support to maintain important relationships during the pandemic, including through technology.
“People were supported to live as full a life as possible during the pandemic and were enabled to participate in activities” from the report
Learning from incidents
Accidents and incidents were investigated. Staff received feedback about changes and lessons learned.
“The registered manager ensured they reflected on occurrences where lessons could be learnt.” from the report
Health risk plans were missing
seriousTwo people at risk of seizures did not have suitable risk assessments or care plans. Four people using catheters did not have specific care plans, and one catheter was incorrectly placed.
“These people did not have risk assessments or care plans in place to guide staff in the event of a seizure taking place.” from the report
Pressure sore prevention was not consistent
seriousThe system for recording regular repositioning was not used consistently for people at risk of pressure sores. This increased the risk of harm.
“The system designed to ensure people were repositioned regularly and appropriately was not being consistently used by staff.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousThe home's monitoring systems did not identify the problems with risk plans, occasional medicines records or repositioning. Call-bell information was collected but not analysed to improve care.
“The systems in place to monitor the quality of service were not always effective.” from the report
Some occasional medicines records were incomplete
needs fixingProtocols for medicines given when needed were available, but records were not always completed accurately. The manager addressed this with staff during the inspection.
“These records had not always been completed accurately to guide staff in supporting people appropriately.” from the report
- 01What new risk assessments and care plans are now in place for people who may have seizures or use catheters?
- 02How do you now check that people at risk of pressure sores are repositioned at the right times?
- 03How are occasional medicines records checked for accuracy, and what happens if an entry is missing?
- 04How do managers analyse call-bell response information and act on any late responses?
- 05What actions have you completed since the inspection, and what evidence can you show that the problems have been fixed?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control; the inspection was prompted in part by concerns about pressure care and staffing. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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.
Every inspection of Cann House Care Home
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2021Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 2011.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Plymouth
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.
8 can care for a couple. 9 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.