CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Clarence Park
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, testing, PPE, cleaning, safe admissions and visiting arrangements. The home also met the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection control and safe visiting arrangements.
This was a targeted inspection on 20 January 2022. The inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected the home. The visit was announced with one day's notice.
The inspectors were assured that the home used testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing and safe admission procedures appropriately. They also found that visits were managed in line with current guidance and that staff and visiting professionals met COVID-19 vaccination requirements.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide a full rating of the home's overall quality or of caring, effective, responsive or well-led care.
COVID-19 testing
The home followed the government testing regime and recorded consent from people living there and staff.
“The provider ensured they adhered to COVID-19 testing regime in line with the government guidance.” from the report
Cleaning
The home had detailed cleaning arrangements, including for frequently used and touchpoint areas.
“There were comprehensive cleaning schedules in place, including the cleaning of frequently used and touchpoint areas.” from the report
PPE and infection control
Staff were trained in infection control and PPE use. The home checked that these processes were followed.
“All staff received training and followed correct infection control and using PPE processes.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home had safety checks for relatives and external professionals visiting.
“Safe arrangements were in place for both external professionals and people's relatives visiting the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What measures are currently in place to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures?
- 02How are visitors currently tested, checked and supported to follow infection control arrangements?
- 03How do you record consent for regular COVID-19 testing from residents and staff?
- 04How do you check that staff use PPE and follow infection control procedures in practice?
- 05How do you prevent or manage an infection outbreak if one occurs?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 February 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
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but the home was not always well-led and record checks had gaps.
Inspectors visited on 29 and 30 January 2019. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, staff files, medicines, incidents, complaints and management records.
People were generally safe and received personalised care. Inspectors found good practice in medicines, staff training, infection control, consent, privacy, activities and support with healthcare. They also saw kind interactions and found that complaints were handled promptly.
The main weakness was management oversight. Audits did not always find missing or inaccurate records. Inspectors also found risks linked to modified diets, repositioning records and unlocked cupboards containing electrical equipment. The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led, while the overall rating was Good.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement, including at its last two inspections. Inspectors found improvements in medicines management and said they would continue to monitor the service.
Personalised care
Inspectors found that care reflected people's individual needs, preferences and interests.
“People received personalised care that considered their individual needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff protect people's privacy and dignity during personal care.
“When people were receiving assistance with personal care, the doors were closed to ensure that the person's privacy was respected.” from the report
Improved medicines management
The report says the home had acted on concerns from the previous inspection. PRN protocols were in place and a pharmacist's audit found no areas for improvement.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made.” from the report
Staff training and recruitment
Recruitment checks were generally completed safely, and staff received induction, ongoing training and supervision.
“Staff received induction and ongoing training, those new to health and social care completed the Care Certificate.” from the report
Personal interests and activities
The home was developing its activities programme and supported people to take part in outings and activities linked to their interests.
“People's preferences and interests were documented, and activities developed according to these.” from the report
Weaknesses in audits
needs fixingManagement checks did not always identify incomplete or inaccurate records. Inspectors recommended that the provider review how its audits worked.
“Audits were not consistently used to identify gaps in records.” from the report
Modified diet risk
seriousOne person's care plan suggested food that was not suitable for their soft diet, and two staff members gave different information about what was safe. Inspectors said this created a choking risk.
“This meant that there was a risk the person may choke on food that was not appropriate as part of their modified diet” from the report
Delays and staffing pressure
needs fixingAlthough staffing levels were maintained according to the home's dependency tool, some people, relatives and staff said there were times when people waited for help.
“One person said, "Always short [staffed]. I wait so long. Can be 30 minutes. Sometimes rushing around. They do what they can.” from the report
Incomplete repositioning records
needs fixingRecords did not always show whether people who needed repositioning had been repositioned as planned, particularly at night.
“Systems had not identified that there were gaps in recording whether people who required repositioning were being repositioned in line with their care plan, particularly at night.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure audits identify incomplete or inaccurate care records?
- 02How do you now check that people with modified diets are offered only safe food and drinks?
- 03How do you monitor repositioning, especially at night, and can relatives see that records are complete?
- 04What are the current average call-bell response times, and how do you respond when people wait for help?
- 05What checks are now in place to make sure cupboards containing electrical equipment remain locked?
This was a planned inspection of all five CQC questions, and both the premises and the care provided were looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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 Clarence Park
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North Somerset
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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 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.