CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Canning Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, individual risks were managed and medicines were handled safely. Hand sanitiser was not always easy to access.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff received improved induction, training and support. Inspectors found one modified diet did not match the recorded speech and language therapy advice, and the home agreed to seek further advice.
- Caring?
- Good
- People had friendly relationships with staff and were treated with privacy, dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices about their daily routines and care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and histories. Activities were varied and reviewed, although inspectors said more detail was needed about people's religious, cultural and personal end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- A new management team had improved audits, staffing arrangements and oversight. The manager acknowledged that actions were not always completed within the timescales set.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Canning Court Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and improvements since the previous inspection, with a few areas still needing attention.
Inspectors visited without notice on 27 April 2022. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, monitoring charts and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safer medicines systems, suitable care planning and good support with health, food, activities and personal choices.
The rating had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in January 2020. The provider had completed an action plan, and the home was no longer in breach of regulations. Inspectors still identified some smaller issues, including access to hand sanitiser, checking modified diets and recording people's end of life wishes.
Improved staffing
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and better consistency through planned agency cover and recruitment. New admissions were limited when staffing levels could not safely meet people's needs.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People had positive relationships with staff. Staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and everyday choices.
“People had developed friendly relationships with the staff who supported them and were relaxed and comfortable when chatting with staff and each other.” from the report
Personalised activities
Staff asked what people wanted to do and offered individual and group activities. The home reviewed whether activities were helping people's wellbeing.
“Each morning designated activities staff spent time with people to meet their individual preferences, such as chatting with them, reading with them, or undertaking individual activities with them.” from the report
Improved management oversight
The new management team had strengthened audits, clinical meetings and the service improvement plan. The previous governance breach had been resolved.
“At this inspection we found improvements and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 17.” from the report
Hand sanitiser access
minorHand sanitiser was not always easy to reach during the inspection. The manager said this would be reviewed.
“Staff were observed using appropriate PPE to perform close contact tasks but hand sanitiser was not always easily accessible.” from the report
Modified diet checks
needs fixingFor one person, the food texture offered did not match the recorded advice from speech and language therapy. The home said it would seek further professional advice.
“In one example, staff offered the person softer textures of food to what was recorded by the speech and language therapist team.” from the report
End of life preferences
needs fixingCare plans included some end of life wishes, but did not contain enough information about religious, cultural or personal preferences. The home had identified this and planned to seek specialist advice.
“However, we found further information in respect of any religious, cultural or personal wishes would ensure people spent their final days as they wished to.” from the report
Completing improvement actions
needs fixingThe management team had improved auditing, but acknowledged that actions were not always completed within the agreed timescales.
“The registered manager was open that improvements still needed to be made to ensure actions were always completed within identified timescales.” from the report
Use of agency staff
minorThere were vacancies for care and nursing staff, supported by agency workers. Inspectors found regular agency bookings helped continuity, but some relatives remained concerned about the high use of agency staff and recent changes.
“However, some relatives did comment on the high use of agency staff and recent staff changes.” from the report
- 01How many care and nursing vacancies are there now, and how often are agency staff being used?
- 02How do you check that modified food textures match the latest speech and language therapy advice?
- 03How are residents' religious, cultural and personal end of life wishes recorded and reviewed?
- 04How do you track improvement actions to make sure they are completed by the agreed deadlines?
- 05Where is hand sanitiser available, and how do you check that it is accessible throughout the home?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control, to check improvements and legal compliance after the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 May 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, January 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and some new improvements, but staffing, personalised care and quality checks were not reliable.
Inspectors visited on 12 and 13 November 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, staff files and quality audits. The inspection covered all five CQC questions.
The home was not always safe, effective, caring or responsive. Agency staff did not always know people well, some risks were not reviewed after important events, care plans were too general, and one person waited too long for help to use the toilet.
People generally received their medicines, food and drink needs were met, and staff often showed kindness. However, quality checks had not led to action and the provider remained in breach of Regulation 17 for good governance.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. The caring rating fell from Good at the previous inspection. A new manager had been in post for six weeks and had started a detailed improvement plan, but inspectors could not yet confirm that enough improvement had been made.
Medicines
Most medicines were managed consistently and safely. Time-specific medicines, as-required medicines and transdermal patches were handled well.
“Overall, people received their medicines in accordance with good practice.” from the report
Food and drink
People's nutrition and hydration needs were met. Staff were patient when helping people eat, and adapted tools supported independence.
“People enjoyed their lunchtime meal and staff showed patience and kindness when assisting people with their meal.” from the report
Kind interactions
Inspectors saw staff showing personal knowledge and compassion, including bringing familiar items and supporting people's interests.
“During our inspection visit we observed many interactions where staff were very thoughtful and compassionate in their approach to people.” from the report
New improvement plan
The new manager had begun reviewing care standards and risk management. Some actions had already been completed, although the plan was still in progress.
“The new manager had a rigorous approach to quality assurance and risk management.” from the report
Staffing and continuity
seriousAgency staff were used heavily and did not always know people's needs. Relatives and staff questioned whether night staffing was enough for people with high support needs.
“This meant there was only one permanent member of staff and two bank members of staff who had been fully inducted and trained in accordance with the provider's policies and procedures.” from the report
Risks and incidents
seriousRisks were not always reassessed after significant events. The provider had not followed its process for looking for patterns in accidents and incidents.
“However, risks were not always reviewed following significant events.” from the report
Dignity and personal care
seriousOne person waited 20 minutes for help to go to the toilet after asking several times. Inspectors said this compromised people's dignity.
“This meant people's dignity was compromised due to the length of time they sometimes had to wait for assistance with personal care.” from the report
Care plans and activities
needs fixingCare plans did not always record changes in needs or enough personal information. Feedback also showed that activities were limited for some people.
“The care plans appear quite basic and a bit generic and there is not enough person-centred information.” from the report
Quality checks
seriousAudits had identified problems, but actions were not consistently followed up. This was a continuing breach of good governance.
“The provider's quality assurance systems had not been implemented effectively.” from the report
- 01How many permanent and agency staff are usually on each floor during the day and at night, and how do you check this meets each person's dependency needs?
- 02What has changed since the inspection to make sure falls and other risks are reviewed after significant events?
- 03How do you ensure care plans record current preferences, routines and changes in people's needs, especially for people living with dementia?
- 04What evidence can you show that actions from audits are now completed and checked by management?
- 05How will you make sure people have regular meaningful activities, including those cared for in bed, and that their spiritual and cultural end-of-life wishes are recorded?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection of the home, covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 January 2020 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 Canning Court Care Home
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 October 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 Warwickshire
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.