CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Clarendon Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Inadequate and in special measures; inspectors found serious risks in care, staffing, medicines and management.
This was the home’s first inspection since a new provider took over. Inspectors visited without notice on 24 and 26 January 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, observed care and meals, and checked care records, staff files and management records.
Inspectors found people were at risk because health and falls risks were not properly assessed or managed. Medicines records were incomplete, staffing levels were not always enough, and fire and water safety checks were not carried out properly. Some people may have been deprived of their liberty unlawfully because mental capacity assessments and legal authorisations were missing.
The home was rated Inadequate overall. Safe and well-led were rated Inadequate. Effective, caring and responsive were rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors did see kind interactions, enjoyable food and good work with health professionals, but these positives did not outweigh the serious shortfalls.
Food and drink
People were offered choices and inspectors saw nutritious food and drinks being provided. People said they enjoyed the meals.
“We observed mealtimes and found that people enjoyed their meals and were supported in an appropriate way.” from the report
Kind interactions
Inspectors saw staff speaking kindly to people. People and relatives were often positive about staff being caring and friendly.
“We saw a number of positive interactions between people and staff throughout our inspection.” from the report
Health professional support
The home worked with health and social care professionals through regular meetings and referrals. This helped some people receive support for their health needs.
“The service worked with other health and social care professionals to ensure people had access to the support and care they required for their health.” from the report
Unmanaged risks
seriousSome people had repeated falls, but their risk assessments had not been updated and effective measures had not been put in place. Risks linked to health conditions and the environment were also not managed well.
“Risks associated with people's support needs and health conditions were not assessed, monitored or reduced effectively.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousMedicine administration records had gaps and stock counts did not always match. Inspectors could not be assured that people received medicines as prescribed.
“We were not assured people received their medicines as prescribed because there were gaps in medicine records and the stock counted did not tally with records.” from the report
Not enough staff
seriousIn the evenings, two staff supported 19 people while also providing personal care, medicines and meals. People were often left without staff nearby and sometimes waited for help.
“There were not enough staff appropriately deployed at all times to meet people's needs.” from the report
Consent and restrictions
seriousMental capacity assessments and best-interest records were often missing. Some people were restricted from leaving without the required legal authorisation.
“This meant people may potentially be deprived of their liberty unlawfully.” from the report
Dignity and privacy
seriousInspectors found concerns about how people were spoken to, clothing being mixed up and personal care records being accessible in the dining room. Care plans did not clearly explain people's choices and preferences.
“People were not always treated with dignity and their privacy was not always respected.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousAudits and records did not identify or address important problems. The home did not have effective systems to learn from incidents or drive improvement.
“Quality and safety monitoring systems were not adequate, and we found there was a lack of governance processes and systems in place to help ensure the safe running of the service.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make falls and other health risks safer, and can you show me the updated risk assessments?
- 02How many staff are on duty at different times, especially evenings, and how do you check that people receive help promptly?
- 03How do you now check that medicines are given correctly and that medicine records and stock counts match?
- 04Which residents now have mental capacity assessments, best-interest decisions or DoLS authorisations, and how are restrictions reviewed?
- 05What evidence can you show of improved care plans, meaningful activities and recorded end of life wishes?
This was an unannounced first inspection after a change of provider and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 June 2023 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 Clarendon Care Home
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.
- June 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 September 2022.
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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of Portsmouth
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 £1,020 to £1,240 a week. 38 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.