CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Cavell Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Medicines, recruitment, risk assessments, equipment and infection control were found to be managed safely, although some people and relatives reported occasional call bell delays.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before admission and staff had induction, training and supervision. People received support with nutrition, healthcare and communication, and the home followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were warm, friendly and respectful. People were involved in everyday decisions, their privacy was respected and their independence was encouraged.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personal, and staff knew people's needs and preferences. Activities and complaint arrangements were in place, but further work was needed to record end-of-life wishes for everyone who wanted this.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff created an open and supportive culture. Audits and checks were used to monitor quality, and people's views and feedback were used to make improvements.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Cavell Manor was rated Good in every area; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some mixed feedback about call bell delays and further work needed on end-of-life plans.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 26 January 2023. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment records, training, audits and maintenance records.
People generally said they felt safe and were happy with their care. Inspectors found the home clean and well maintained. Medicines were given safely, care plans and risk assessments were detailed, and staff understood how to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm.
Inspectors found staff to be kind and respectful. People were involved in decisions about their care, had activities available and received support with food, drinks and healthcare. The home had systems to listen to feedback, deal with complaints and monitor care quality.
This was the first inspection since the service registered. Good means inspectors found people's needs were met and that the home was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. It does not mean that every part of the service was perfect.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm conversations and staff spending time with people. Relatives also gave positive feedback about the staff.
“We observed all staff, regardless of their role, took the time to have a chat and spend time with people and to make sure nobody was overlooked.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff had the training and checks needed to give medicines properly.
“Medicines were safely administered, stored and recorded by staff who had the required knowledge and skills.” from the report
Detailed personal care plans
Care plans included people's life histories, preferences and health needs. Staff used handovers and meetings to share changes.
“Information in care plans was detailed and person centred and included information about people's life history, their likes and dislikes and specific health and emotional needs.” from the report
Clean and suitable home
The environment was clean, well maintained and designed with features to support mobility, communication and social time.
“People's care and support was provided in a safe, clean, well equipped and well-maintained and safe environment.” from the report
People's views acted on
People could attend meetings, suggest changes and set personal wishes or goals. Inspectors found the manager responsive to feedback.
“The provider and registered manager were committed to continuous improvement. The registered manager was open and responsive to any feedback.” from the report
Some call bell delays
needs fixingSome people and relatives said call bells were not always answered quickly. Inspectors saw prompt responses during the visit and found staffing sufficient overall.
“We received some mixed feedback about staffing levels with some people and relatives quoting some delays in call bell response time.” from the report
End-of-life planning not complete
minorSome people's end-of-life wishes had been discussed and recorded, but the home was still doing further work to make sure this was offered to everyone where wanted.
“Further work was in progress to ensure this was in place for all people where this was their choice.” from the report
- 01How quickly are call bells usually answered during busy mornings, and how do you monitor any delays?
- 02How many staff are normally on duty on each shift, and how do you cover sickness or vacancies?
- 03How will you make sure my relative's end-of-life wishes are discussed, recorded and kept up to date?
- 04How are relatives involved when care plans or medicines change?
- 05What activities would be suitable for my relative's interests, abilities and communication needs?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 February 2023 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 Cavell Manor
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 December 2021.
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.