CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Clarkson House Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Clarkson House Residential Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff and good activities, but safety, medicines and oversight were not reliable.
Inspectors visited without warning on 15 and 16 May 2023. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staffing, safety and management records.
The home was not always safe. Risks were missed or not kept up to date, including unsafe windows, unsecured wardrobes, trip hazards and conflicting dietary information. Medicines records showed missing signatures and several days when prescribed medicines had not been given. The provider dealt with some issues during or after the inspection.
Care was kind and respectful, and people had activities, choices and access to healthcare. Staffing, recruitment, infection control and complaints handling were generally positive. However, care plans were sometimes inaccurate or conflicting, parts of the building needed improvement, and management checks had not always led to action.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Caring and Responsive were rated Good. The last rating was Good, published in August 2019.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and compassion. People and relatives also spoke positively about the care team.
“Throughout our inspection, we observed staff to be kind, caring and compassionate.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
The home had staffing levels above those identified through its dependency assessment. Required recruitment checks had been completed.
“The service was safely staffed.” from the report
Activities and inclusion
People had a range of activities and were supported not to become isolated, including people who spent time in their bedrooms.
“We witnessed several activities taking place during both days of the inspection” from the report
Food and healthcare
People's nutritional needs were monitored, referrals were made when needed, and people spoke positively about the food and access to healthcare.
“People's nutritional needs were being met.” from the report
Mental capacity practice
The home was working within the Mental Capacity Act principles, with decision-specific records and required authorisations in place.
“We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA” from the report
Unmanaged safety risks
seriousInspectors found windows without restrictors, unsecured wardrobes, a room with trip hazards and risk assessments that were not up to date. These issues created a risk of harm.
“There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.” from the report
Medicines not managed safely
seriousSome medicines were not dated when opened, records had missing signatures, and tablet counts suggested prescribed medicines had not been given for several days. Storage temperature was also not checked.
“We found no evidence people had been harmed. However, medicines were not safely managed which placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Conflicting care information
seriousSome care plans and risk assessments were inaccurate, out of date or conflicting. One person's conflicting dietary information led to the wrong diet being given and created a choking risk.
“One person's care plan held conflicting information about their dietary requirements.” from the report
Weak follow-through from audits
seriousManagement audits had identified some concerns, but action was not always taken to reduce the risks. This led to a breach of good governance requirements.
“There was little action taken to mitigate risk.” from the report
Building improvements still needed
minorSome parts of the building, furnishings and decoration were dated and still required upgrading. An improvement plan was in place and work was ongoing.
“Improvements had been made to the building, furnishings, and decorations, but this work was still ongoing, and improvements were needed.” from the report
- 01What has changed in medicines practice since the inspection, and how do you now check that every dose is given and recorded?
- 02How are individual risks, including dietary and choking risks, assessed and kept up to date?
- 03What action has been taken to make the windows, wardrobes and rooms safe?
- 04How do your audits now make sure that identified problems are corrected promptly?
- 05Can we see the improvement plan and the provider's action plan in response to the CQC breaches?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care, premises, medicines, records, staffing, infection control and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 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 Clarkson House Residential Care Home
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- June 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Clarkson House Residential Care Home →
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 October 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Tameside
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. 90 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.