CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Clandon House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People had care plans and risk assessments, staff understood safeguarding, medicines were administered as prescribed, and the home was clean with enough staff. Medicine audits were said to happen daily, but there were no records confirming this.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant skills, training, supervision and experience. People were supported with healthcare, but the home did not keep a menu and was asked to improve records showing how people's nutrition needs were met.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were caring, and inspectors observed friendly and respectful communication. Staff supported privacy, independence, family contact, community access and religious or cultural preferences.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences, and people and relatives were involved in reviews. People were supported with activities and complaints, although some keyworker records had gaps.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager was described as approachable and there were audits and links with health and social care professionals. However, systems for managing people's personal allowances were not robust, with missing money and incomplete receipts.
What inspectors found, July 2018
Clandon House was rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not always well-led because personal allowances were not managed securely.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 12 June 2018. Two inspectors spoke with people living in the home, a relative, an advocate, staff, the manager and the provider. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records, complaints and quality checks.
The inspectors found that people were safe, received their medicines as prescribed and had care based on their needs and preferences. The home was clean, had enough staff and supported people's healthcare, activities, family contact and religious or cultural preferences. People and relatives generally described staff as kind, supportive and knowledgeable.
The main problem was how people's personal money was managed. Records did not always match the money held, and receipts were not always kept. The overall rating stayed Good, as did Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement.
Risk management
People had detailed risk assessments that set out possible risks and how staff should reduce them.
“People's risk assessments were comprehensive detailing possible risks and how to minimise them.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff positively. Inspectors saw staff communicate in a friendly, respectful way and support people's privacy and choices.
“During the visit we observed that the registered manager, the provider and staff communicated with people and staff in a friendly and approachable manner.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had training, induction, supervision and appraisals. They understood people's needs and how to support behaviour that challenged the service.
“Staff had the skills, knowledge and training in areas related to their job roles.” from the report
Personalised activities and care
Care plans included personal needs and preferences. People were supported to attend activities, appointments, community venues and family visits.
“These records showed how staff supported people to take part in activities, attend appointments and places of interest.” from the report
Personal money was not secure
seriousThe cash held for one person was less than the amount recorded, and receipts were not always kept. Inspectors said the arrangements were not secure or open enough to protect people from abuse.
“The recording of people's personal expenses and the overall management of personal allowances were not secure and open to abuse.” from the report
Medicine audit records
needs fixingMedicines and administration records were in order, but the home could not show records proving that daily medicine audits had taken place.
“However, there were no records to confirm that these audits had taken place.” from the report
Gaps in keyworker records
needs fixingSome monthly keyworker reports were incomplete. The manager said the system would be followed and appropriate records kept.
“We looked at the monthly keyworker reports and noted some gaps in recording.” from the report
Nutrition records
minorThe home did not keep a menu. The manager said staff would improve records of meals and keep shopping lists to show how people's nutrition needs were met.
“The service did not keep a menu for us to review.” from the report
- 01What new checks are now used to record and protect each person's personal allowances?
- 02How do you make sure the cash held matches the records and that every receipt is kept?
- 03Can you show how medicine audits are recorded and followed up?
- 04How are meals and shopping recorded to show that each person's nutrition needs are being met?
- 05How do you check that keyworker reports are completed when people are away from the home?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, with Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive rated Good and Well-led rated Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 July 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.
Every inspection of Clandon House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Redbridge
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 £1,250 a week. 75 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.