CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cawood House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including the use of PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing and arrangements for outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Cawood House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 19 April 2021. It was carried out because of COVID-19 outbreaks and looked only at infection prevention and control.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, followed testing and social distancing guidance, and had suitable arrangements for visitors and people admitted to the home.
The home was clean, with extra cleaning of frequently touched areas. People with confirmed COVID-19 had designated staff and separate access arrangements to reduce the risk of spreading infection.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide a full rating for the quality of care or for the other areas CQC normally assesses.
Clean environment
The home was clean and high-touch areas were cleaned more often during the day.
“The home was clean throughout and additional cleaning of high touch areas completed throughout the day.” from the report
Safe PPE use
Staff had training in using and disposing of PPE, and the manager carried out checks on handwashing and PPE use.
“Staff had received training in how to use and dispose of personal protective equipment (PPE) safely.” from the report
Safer visiting
The home had a designated visiting area and gave visitors information about the procedures they needed to follow. People could also keep in touch by telephone and video calls.
“A designated area had been established which visitors could access without walking through the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 19 April 2021?
- 02How are visitors currently supported to visit safely, and is there still a designated visiting area?
- 03How often are high-touch areas cleaned now?
- 04What happens if a resident tests positive for COVID-19, including which staff support them and how communal areas are protected?
- 05Can you provide information about the home's wider quality of care, since this inspection did not assess Effective, Caring, Responsive or Well-led?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the home was inspected but not rated and the other four questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 May 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.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective care, but safety still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 April 2019. Inspectors reviewed care and medicines records, staff files, training, policies and audits. They looked around the home, observed care and spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. The home was clean, staff were kind and respectful, and people received support with healthcare, activities and their individual needs.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found some gaps while records were being moved to an electronic system. The medicines system did not show all the information needed for some medicines, and staff gave conflicting information about laundry segregation.
The previous inspection, published in April 2018, rated the service Requires Improvement and found two breaches. Inspectors said the required improvements had been made and those requirements were met at this inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with dignity and respect and supported their choices and independence. People and relatives spoke positively about the care.
“Staff displayed caring values; they treated people with kindness, dignity and respect during care delivery.” from the report
Good healthcare support
Staff sought medical attention when needed and worked with GPs, district nurses and other healthcare professionals.
“The service was responsive to people's health and wellbeing needs; medical attention was sought when required.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home had a full activity programme and recorded each person's activity preferences. Activities included both group sessions and individual interests.
“There was a full activity programme at the service and they employed a full-time activities and lifestyle facilitator.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
The design included photographs, contrasting colours and memory boxes to help people orientate themselves and remain independent.
“The accommodation's decoration had been adapted to meet people's needs; particularly regarding those people living with dementia.” from the report
Improved management oversight
Inspectors found regular audits and a management team that understood its responsibilities. The previous concerns about auditing and oversight had improved.
“Regular checks and audits enabled the service to maintain standards of care and safety.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingThe electronic medicines record did not include information for some medicines given when needed or the site of pain patches. Staff knew the information from other sources, but the electronic system did not prompt them at each medicines round.
“We found the EMAR system did not include information about some medicines to be given 'when required' and the site of people's pain patches.” from the report
Records during changeover
needs fixingTwo electronic records had discrepancies while care records were being moved from paper to electronic versions. Inspectors found no impact on care during this visit, but the manager said the records would be reviewed and corrected.
“We found some discrepancies with one aspect of two people's electronic records due to the changeover.” from the report
Laundry procedures
needs fixingStaff gave conflicting information about how effectively laundry was separated into different bags. The manager gave assurances that the correct process was being followed and would investigate.
“We received conflicting information from staff regarding how effectively the laundry was safely segregated into separate bags.” from the report
Door alarm volume
minorInspectors found the door alarms were loud and frequent. They recommended that the provider consider the volume and its possible effect on people living in the home.
“We recommend the provider considers the volume of this alarm and any potential impact on people living at the home.” from the report
- 01Has the electronic medicines record been updated to include all 'when required' medicines and the sites of pain patches?
- 02How are care records checked for errors now that records have moved from paper to the electronic system?
- 03What action was taken to make sure laundry is separated safely into the correct bags?
- 04Have the door alarms been made quieter or reviewed for their effect on people living in the home?
- 05How are you checking that the improvements from the previous inspection have been maintained?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the visit carried out without notice. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 June 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 Cawood House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 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 Stockport
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 £1,260 a week. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the 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.