CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Canterbury House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2018
Canterbury House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with major improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 8 August 2018. Inspectors spent time with 10 people living at the home, spoke with relatives, a visitor, a health professional, the manager and six staff members. They also checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment, training, complaints, audits and maintenance records.
The home received a Good rating in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines management, good food and support with hydration, prompt access to healthcare, kind staff and personalised care.
The previous comprehensive inspection in July 2017 rated the home Requires Improvement and found a breach linked to safeguarding. Inspectors said the problems had been greatly improved and resolved. They also found better management, more suitable activities for people living with dementia and complaints being used to improve the service.
Safeguarding and risk
Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and care plans gave clear instructions for managing risks such as falls, pressure ulcers and nutrition.
“We were confident that staff would raise concerns and use the whistle blowing systems in place if needed.” from the report
Medicines
Inspectors found safe systems for storing, giving, recording and reviewing medicines. The records checked had no errors or omissions.
“All the records we looked at were accurate, complete and up to date, with no errors or omissions noted.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's preferences and histories, communicated well and supported people to make choices and keep their independence.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them well.” from the report
Personalised activities
People could choose activities and interests, including time outdoors, films, puzzles, religious services and activities in the dementia unit.
“The environment was more stimulating with equipment accessible and changes of décor.” from the report
Management and improvement
Inspectors found stronger management and oversight than at the previous inspection. Feedback and complaints were used to make changes.
“We found a more settled and inclusive service that staff were proud to belong to.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01The report says further dementia training was being rolled out. What dementia training has staff completed since the inspection?
- 02The report says additional staff were being recruited. What are the current staffing levels and how are gaps covered?
- 03How will you assess and regularly review my relative's risks, care needs, nutrition and hydration?
- 04How will my relative be involved in their care plan and in choosing activities?
- 05What nursing or clinical support is available if my relative's health needs change, given that the home does not provide nursing care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home's premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 September 2018 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, September 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but safeguarding, activities, complaints and management needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 July 2017. Inspectors spoke with nine people, eight staff and the registered manager. They reviewed care files, staff records, training records, audits and policies.
People were generally positive about the care. Staff were kind and respectful. People's health, nutrition, medicines and care plans were mostly well managed. However, safeguarding procedures were not always followed, and one serious allegation was not handled appropriately.
The home had recently lost 10 staff while the manager was absent for several weeks. Agency staff were used to maintain staffing levels, but people were unhappy about the lack of familiar carers. Recruitment had started and inspectors judged staffing levels safe at the time of the visit.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective and Caring were rated Good. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. This was the first ratings inspection since the home was registered under the provider.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness, patience, privacy and dignity. Staff listened to people and respected their choices.
“Staff treated people well and were kind and caring in the way that they provided care and support.” from the report
Health and nutrition
People had access to health professionals and received support with their dietary needs. The home acted on specialist advice, including by adding extra calories to some meals.
“People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services.” from the report
Medicines management
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, given and checked safely. Higher-risk medicines were recorded clearly.
“Medicines were managed safely and service policies and procedures followed.” from the report
Care planning and risk assessment
Care plans usually identified people's risks and gave staff clear guidance. Plans were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“When we looked at people's care and support plans, we could see that the risks to them and others had been identified, and risk management plans with clear guidance for staff were in place.” from the report
Safeguarding was not reliable
seriousA potentially serious allegation was not dealt with appropriately. Records were incomplete and the right people were not informed promptly. This was a breach and created a risk to people's safety.
“After our inspection visit we were made aware of a potentially serious allegation that was not dealt with appropriately.” from the report
Too many agency staff
needs fixingRecent staff departures led to heavy use of agency workers. People were concerned that agency staff did not know them well, although inspectors found staffing levels safe during the visit.
“People were dissatisfied with the volume of agency staff and had contacted CQC about the changes and potential risks.” from the report
Limited dementia activities
needs fixingThe dementia unit offered little ongoing stimulation and was described as bland. Managers recognised this and were starting to develop resources.
“We found that the overall environment within the dementia unit was acceptable but quite bland and lacked normal stimulation.” from the report
Complaints did not drive improvement
needs fixingThe complaints process was in place, but records were not well organised and learning was not consistently shared with staff. Ongoing concerns about catering had not been fully resolved.
“Complaints were not systematically used to drive improvement with all staff being made aware of learning.” from the report
Management needed to be more open
needs fixingSome people and relatives found management distant. Inspectors said the home needed a more inclusive culture and more timely responses to issues.
“Management needed to develop a more positive and open culture for people who used the service.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure every safeguarding allegation is recorded, investigated and shared with the right people promptly?
- 02How many regular care staff are now in post, and how much agency cover is still being used?
- 03What activities and stimulation are now available for people living with dementia?
- 04How are complaints recorded, reviewed and shared with staff so that they lead to lasting improvements?
- 05What steps have been taken to improve communication between management, residents and relatives?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating; it was the first ratings inspection since the home was registered under the provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 September 2017 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 Canterbury House
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 February 2017.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.