CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Charlton House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections, using personal protective equipment safely, arranging testing, admitting people safely and keeping the premises clean. They were also assured that the infection control policy was up to date.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that the home had suitable infection prevention and control measures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 24 March 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured about visitor checks, admissions, testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing and the management of possible outbreaks. The home had infection control training, regular audits and an updated policy.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not provide an overall judgement about the quality of care or a standard rating for the service.
Visitor safety
Visits were booked in advance and visitors were given clear instructions about temperature checks, testing and hand sanitiser. A visitor's room was cleaned between visits.
“All visits were pre-booked to enable cleaning of the visitor's room.” from the report
Staff infection control training
Staff had training in infection control, including coronavirus-related training.
“All staff had received appropriate training on infection control, which included relevant COVID-19 modules.” from the report
Clean premises
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic. Cleaning included frequently touched areas such as light switches and door handles.
“The care home was visibly clean and hygienic on the day of the visit.” from the report
Updated procedures
The home had an infection control policy that was reviewed as guidance changed. It also completed regular infection control audits.
“There was an infection control policy which was routinely reviewed and updated in accordance with changes in guidance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 24 March 2021?
- 02How often are infection control audits completed now, and have any actions been identified since this report?
- 03How do you manage testing and isolation when a resident or staff member tests positive?
- 04How do you keep families informed if there is an infection outbreak or a change to visiting arrangements?
- 05How do you make sure staff working across the wider group do not spread infections between homes?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only, so it did not rate the service overall or assess the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 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, March 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the well-led rating was Requires Improvement because there was no registered manager.
Inspectors visited on 13 and 14 February 2020. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, kind interactions, personalised care, safe medicines systems and good support with food and healthcare. Some people said they would like more opportunities to go out.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. There was no registered manager at the time of the inspection, although a manager had been recruited and was due to start soon. The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, and inspectors found improvements meant the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels met people's needs and staff were organised at the start of shifts.
“There were enough staff to meet the needs of people and staff were well organised and clearly delegated to by duty managers at the start of each shift.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with patience, dignity and respect. Staff encouraged independence and involved people in decisions about their day.
“We saw several kind and caring interactions between staff and people living in the service.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, and staff knew how people liked their care delivered.
“Care plans were personalised. They contained information on people's likes and dislikes.” from the report
Improvements since the last inspection
Earlier problems with hallway clutter and infection control had been addressed sufficiently for the provider no longer to be in breach.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. This meant a registration requirement was not met and led to the Requires Improvement rating for Well-led.
“There was no registered manager in post at the time of our inspection.” from the report
Staff knowledge checks
needs fixingInspectors said some staff needed more confidence and understanding in skin care, recognising when someone became unwell and dementia care.
“We recommend staff have their knowledge and understanding checked regarding key support areas by referring to a reputable source of information and guidance.” from the report
Laundry arrangements
needs fixingThe laundry was very small, and inspectors saw soiled laundry bags being carried over clean laundry. They said this could create a risk of cross-contamination, although new bins had been ordered.
“We fed back a concern this could place people at risk of cross-contamination.” from the report
Opportunities to go out
minorSome people said they would like to go out more. The management team was still working on how to offer more activities.
“Some people who were less mobile told us they would like to go out more.” from the report
- 01Has the manager who was due to start been registered with the CQC, and who is responsible for the home until then?
- 02How do you check staff knowledge and confidence in skin integrity, recognising when someone is unwell and dementia care?
- 03What changes have been made to keep clean and dirty laundry separate, and how are these checked?
- 04How will you help people who are less mobile to go out more often?
- 05How do you support residents with mobility problems in this older, split-level building?
This was a planned inspection of all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the report says the previous rating was Requires Improvement and that the four other question ratings had either improved or remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 March 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 Charlton House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 December 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Plymouth
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.
8 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.