CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Clanfield Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely, staffing and recruitment checks were suitable, and infection control arrangements were effective.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- People's care did not always achieve good outcomes consistently. Inspectors saw uneven support at mealtimes and some disrespectful ways of speaking to people.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager promoted a positive culture and the home used audits, surveys and partnerships with health professionals to monitor and improve care. Inspectors still found that person-centred care was inconsistent.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and good leadership, but person-centred support was inconsistent and Effective was rated Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 6 July 2022. One inspector reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and safety checks. They spoke with people, a relative, staff and managers.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, recruitment and infection control were managed safely. Leaders used audits, listened to feedback and had improved the service since the previous inspection.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Most staff supported people well at mealtimes, but this was not consistent. Inspectors saw some disrespectful communication and recommended more training in person-centred dementia care.
This was a focused inspection covering Safe, Effective and Well-led. Caring and Responsive were not inspected, so their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating.
Safety arrangements
The home assessed and reviewed risks, used suitable equipment and carried out important building and fire safety checks.
“Systems and processes were in place to support people's safety.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff were trained and checked as competent.
“Medicines were received, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Health support
People's health needs were responded to promptly, with involvement from relevant health professionals.
“Records showed that people's healthcare needs were responded to in a timely manner.” from the report
Improvement since last inspection
The provider acted on the previous inspection findings. The home was no longer in breach of the regulation identified at that time.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation.” from the report
Uneven mealtime support
needs fixingSupport with eating and drinking was not consistent. Inspectors saw a staff member speak across the room in a way that was disrespectful and did not protect dignity.
“However, the quality of support was not consistent within the staff team.” from the report
Communication with people living with dementia
needs fixingSome staff used terms such as 'sweetie' and 'good girl'. Inspectors said this could be disrespectful and recommended further training in person-centred dementia care.
“Although the intentions were generally well-meaning, communicating in such a way can be disrespectful and convey a message of inferiority” from the report
Inconsistent person-centred care
needs fixingInspectors observed both kind, positive interactions and negative interactions where staff did not recognise people's individual support needs.
“This meant people's experiences of receiving person centred care was inconsistent.” from the report
- 01What training has staff received since the inspection on person-centred care and communication with people living with dementia?
- 02How do you check that staff speak respectfully to people and avoid terms such as 'sweetie', 'darling' or 'good girl'?
- 03How do you make sure support with eating and drinking is individualised and consistent at every meal?
- 04How do you monitor whether people are achieving good outcomes from their care?
- 05How were people supported while the main lounge and conservatory were closed during the building works?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 August 2022 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, April 2019
Clanfield Residential Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but gaps in safety records, consent and management checks.
This was the first inspection of the home. It was an unannounced visit on 15 January 2019. Two inspectors and an expert by experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They observed a meal and staff handover, and checked care records, recruitment files and quality checks.
People generally said they felt safe and were treated kindly. Staffing levels were enough, medicines were given as prescribed, the home was clean, and people received food and support with health appointments. Staff knew people's needs and preferences, and activities and complaints arrangements were viewed positively.
However, risk plans and records about incidents did not always give staff enough detail to keep people safe. Records about people's ability to make decisions were unclear, and some decisions were made without the right paperwork. The home was in breach of Regulation 11, relating to consent. The overall rating and the ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led were Requires Improvement, while Caring and Responsive were Good.
Enough staff
Inspectors observed enough staff to support people safely. Staff said they did not feel rushed or under pressure.
“Staff said they felt there were enough staff to meet people's needs safely and didn't feel rushed or under pressure.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff knew people's individual needs and supported privacy and dignity.
“Good: People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home involved families and the local community in varied activities. Staff also gathered information about people's histories, preferences and interests.
“Activities were varied and often involved people's families and members of the community.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People's nutritional needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff supported people to access doctors and other health professionals when needed.
“Staff supported people in a timely manner with their healthcare needs.” from the report
Risk information was incomplete
needs fixingRisk assessments did not always give staff detailed instructions. Records after incidents did not clearly explain the actions or interventions needed to keep people safe.
“However, these lacked detailed instructions to staff as to how to manage the risks identified.” from the report
Consent records
seriousSome decisions were made without consultation or clear records of why this was appropriate. The report says the provider had not lawfully obtained consent.
“The provider has failed to lawfully obtain consent.” from the report
Quality checks did not catch problems
needs fixingAudits and monitoring were not always effective. Problems included incomplete behaviour records, missing best-interest decisions and notifications that had not always been sent to CQC.
“The systems in place to audit and monitor the quality of care were not always effective.” from the report
Some areas were not dementia-friendly
minorParts of the home were not specifically designed for people living with dementia. The provider was advised to seek specialist guidance.
“Other areas in the home lacked personalisation and were not specifically dementia friendly.” from the report
- 01How have you made sure every person's risk assessment gives staff clear instructions about managing their identified risks?
- 02How do you now record mental capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and consent for each specific decision?
- 03How do you check that records about behaviour, incidents and care delivery are complete and accurate?
- 04What changes have you made to your quality audits and to the process for notifying CQC about reportable events?
- 05What progress has been made with making the shared areas more suitable and dementia-friendly?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions, with records, staffing, premises and quality systems checked. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 April 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 Clanfield Residential Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Clanfield Residential Care Home →
- April 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Clanfield Residential Care Home →
- January 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 January 2018.
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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of North Northamptonshire
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. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
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.