CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cauldon Place
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood people's risks, medicines were managed safely, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers had clear roles, effective quality checks and good oversight of the home. Improvements had been made since the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and the home was well-led, after improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 11 November 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, a relative and staff, and reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training information and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable infection control measures and systems to protect people from abuse and manage risks.
The visit followed a high number of safeguarding concerns. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm during this inspection. The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection and was no longer in breach of regulations.
This was not a full inspection of all five areas. Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse and understood people's individual risks.
“People felt safe. Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and they understood people's risks and how to support them safely.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including one-to-one support where required. Recruitment checks and training were in place.
“There were enough staff to safely meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were given when needed. Staff were trained and their competence was checked, with guidance for medicines given only when required.
“Medicines were managed safely so that people got their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Improved management
The home had strengthened its systems since the previous inspection. Managers had clear responsibilities and quality checks were effective.
“There was an effective governance system in place and the provider had good oversight of the daily running of the service.” from the report
People involved in care
People were treated as individuals and were involved in planning their care where possible. The home gathered feedback in different ways.
“People were treated as individuals and were involved in planning their own care wherever possible.” from the report
Safeguarding concerns prompted the inspection
needs fixingThe focused inspection took place because the home had received a high number of safeguarding adult concerns. Inspectors found no evidence during this visit that people were at risk of harm.
“This service had a high number of safeguarding adult concerns.” from the report
- 01What were the safeguarding concerns that led to this focused inspection, and what action has been taken since?
- 02How do you check that safeguarding concerns are reported, investigated and followed up?
- 03What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, and when will these areas next be inspected?
- 04How do you make sure people continue to receive the one-to-one support identified in their care plans?
- 05How are people and relatives' feedback and complaints recorded and used to make improvements?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 December 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.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found good care in four areas but weaknesses in management and record-keeping.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 18 and 20 March 2019. They spoke with people living at the home, staff, a relative and professionals. They also checked care files, medicines records, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People said they felt safe, received medicines as prescribed, were treated kindly and were supported to make choices about their care.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement because the home was not always well-led. Notifications were not always sent to the CQC, and checks in people's risk plans were not always recorded. The report says this was a breach of Regulation 18 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.
Medicines improved
Inspectors found that medicines were being given as prescribed and records were accurate. This was an improvement since the previous inspection.
“At this inspection we found the provider had made the required improvements.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and dignity. Staff supported people to make choices and encouraged independence.
“People were treated with kindness by staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care reflected people's needs, interests and communication methods. People were supported with activities, community work and personal choices.
“People received personalised care responsive to their needs.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks included references and DBS checks.
“There were enough safely recruited staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Missed CQC notifications
seriousThe provider did not always submit notifications about important events as required by law. This was a breach of Regulation 18.
“Notifications were not always submitted as required.” from the report
Safety checks not recorded
needs fixingSafety plans were in place, but staff did not always document that the required checks had been completed. Inspectors recommended stronger recording systems.
“Although plans were in place to monitor people's safety, we found that the actions from these plans weren't always documented.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act records
needs fixingWhere people lacked capacity, the records did not clearly show the full best-interest decision-making process. Inspectors recommended stronger documentation.
“We found that where people did lack capacity, the best interest process was not clearly evidenced.” from the report
Inconsistent leadership
needs fixingThe report says management systems did not always support high-quality care. A staff survey also showed low morale and that staff sometimes felt criticised.
“Service management and leadership was inconsistent.” from the report
- 01What system is now used to make sure all required CQC notifications are sent on time?
- 02How do you record that the safety checks in each person's risk plan have been completed?
- 03How are best-interest decisions for people who lack capacity now recorded and reviewed?
- 04What action has been taken to improve staff morale since the survey found that morale was low and staff sometimes felt criticised?
- 05What improvements have been made since the planned refurbishment of kitchens, bathrooms and doors mentioned in the report?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five care quality areas at the home; the agency service was also registered but nobody was receiving a regulated activity there during the inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 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.
Every inspection of Cauldon Place
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Stoke-on-Trent
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 £1,190 a week. 93 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“She's shown compassion, patience and a level of understanding that no other carer has given.”
“She maintained a great environment for mum both with the tidiness and cleanliness of the house and Mum and with her caring and understanding attitude.”
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.