CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Clarendon House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe, and staff understood safeguarding procedures. Risks were assessed, although some medicine instructions and smoking-related risks needed clearer documentation.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support with healthcare, training and daily needs. Some people had been restricted from freely accessing the secure garden, but this was reviewed after the inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors found that people were supported to make decisions, maintain independence and have privacy.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans described people's needs, preferences and goals. People were supported with activities, community visits, relationships, education and work-related goals.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had management systems, staff supervision and action plans. However, audits had not identified some disrespectful language in records.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Clarendon House rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some cleaning and record-keeping issues.
Inspectors visited on 4 and 5 February 2020. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with three people, staff, managers and visiting professionals. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe and that staff were kind. The home supported people with choices, healthcare, activities and personal goals.
There were some issues. Parts of the home needed better cleaning. Some medicine instructions and risk assessments were unclear, but the registered manager acted during or after the inspection. Audits had also missed some disrespectful wording in records.
Person-centred support
Care plans included people's histories, health needs, preferences and goals. People were involved in reviewing their progress.
“People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and visiting professionals described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff supporting people with reassurance, independence and daily decisions.
“People told us the staff were caring and kind.” from the report
Community activities
People were supported to use local facilities, join activities and work towards employment or greater independence.
“People were supported to develop their skills and to be part of the local community.” from the report
Good partnership working
Health and social care professionals said referrals were timely and their advice was followed. Staff were available to support professional visits.
“Social and healthcare professionals told us referrals for support were made in a timely manner.” from the report
Cleaning needed improvement
needs fixingParts of the property, including corridors and stairwells, needed better cleaning routines. The manager said this would be addressed.
“While the property was well maintained and decorated to a good standard there were parts of the property that were in need of better cleaning routines.” from the report
Medicine instructions were unclear
minorInstructions for medicines given when needed did not clearly explain the order for using more than one pain relief medicine. The manager produced updated instructions after feedback.
“However, protocols were not clear on the order that multiple pain relief medicines were to be administered.” from the report
Restricted garden access
needs fixingSome people had to wait for staff to open the secure garden. The manager reviewed this after the inspection and the updated risk assessment said people should not have restricted access.
“However, some people were not given free access to the secure garden.” from the report
Language in records
minorSome records used wording that was not always respectful. The manager said this would be addressed, but the home's audits had not identified it.
“Audits had not identified where staff were not always using respectful language to describe events.” from the report
- 01What cleaning improvements have been made in the corridors and stairwells, and how are they checked now?
- 02How are staff told which order to use when more than one pain relief medicine is prescribed for use when needed?
- 03Can residents access the secure garden freely, and when would staff support or supervise that access?
- 04What has been done to stop disrespectful wording being used in care records?
- 05How is the home supporting the newer staff team to work consistently and manage behaviour that may place people at risk?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided; the first day was unannounced and all ratings were reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 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.
What inspectors found, July 2017
Clarendon House rated Good in every area; inspectors found safe, respectful and personalised care with effective management.
This was an announced comprehensive inspection on 26 April and 3 May 2017. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with four people living at the home, four staff and four healthcare professionals. They also observed care, looked around the home and checked care plans, medicines, staffing, training and quality records.
The inspectors found that people felt safe and were supported by trained staff. Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. People received personalised care, had choices about their daily lives and were treated with respect. Staff supported people to maintain their health, relationships, independence and community activities.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found the service met the relevant standards at the time of the inspection. The report also says the provider name had changed and the home had been re-registered, so earlier inspection history was not linked to this provider, although no concerns had been identified previously.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they trusted the staff and felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns.
“We saw people were relaxed with the staff who were supporting them, and did not hesitate to seek support or assistance from any of the staff members present during our inspection.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was based on individual routines, preferences and goals. The home used a Recovery Star system to support progress for people with mental health difficulties.
“Care and support was centred on the individual's needs and routines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff gave people time, respected their privacy and supported their independence. People appeared comfortable and relaxed with staff.
“We observed kind and respectful interactions where people were given time to express themselves fully.” from the report
Support for independence
People were supported to take part in activities, use community facilities, meet others and pursue employment opportunities.
“The service was flexible and responsive to people's individual needs.” from the report
Good leadership and monitoring
Staff understood the home's values and felt supported. Regular audits and visits checked areas such as medicines, fire safety, care plans and staff practice.
“The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care and support that people received.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's personal goals using the Recovery Star system?
- 02How do you decide whether there are enough staff for appointments, outings or changes in someone's needs?
- 03How are medicines, including as-needed medicines, checked and recorded?
- 04How often will my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed with them and their family?
- 05How can we raise a concern, and how will we be told what action has been taken?
This was an announced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the ratings based on visits on 26 April and 3 May 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 July 2017 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 House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 October 2016.
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 two hours of Wiltshire
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 £1,340 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.