CQC report explained · a care home with nursing
What the CQC found at Claro Homes
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, staff understood safeguarding, medicines were managed safely and staffing met people's needs. Some bathrooms needed repair or refurbishment because they were difficult to keep clean.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible and approachable managers, effective audits and a positive culture. The management team responded to feedback and worked with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care, with some bathrooms needing repair or refurbishment.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 15 and 22 November 2022. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led because concerns had been received about safe care. They spoke with nine people, seven staff and five professionals, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Good for Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels met people's needs and managers had effective checks in place.
The inspection found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from the concerns received. However, some bathrooms needed repair or refurbishment because they were difficult to keep clean. An improvement plan was already in place.
The Safe rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. Well-led remained Good. The overall rating stayed Good, but the other three question ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection rather than assessed during this visit.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“There were enough staff employed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained to support people with medicines. The medicines records inspected were complete, with no gaps in signatures.
“The medicines administration records (MAR) we looked at were complete and signed appropriately with no gaps in signatures.” from the report
People were known well
The stable staff team understood people's needs, abilities and preferences. Inspectors found this supported continuity of care.
“There was a stable staff team and some core team members had worked at the service for many years.” from the report
Strong management oversight
Managers were visible and approachable. Regular audits and action plans were used to monitor and improve the service.
“Robust quality assurance processes were in place to monitor and improve standards and ensure high quality care and support was provided.” from the report
Bathrooms need work
needs fixingSome bathrooms needed repair or refurbishment. Their condition made them difficult to keep clean and created a higher risk of contamination. An improvement plan was in place.
“The environment was clean overall, but some bathrooms required refurbishment or repair.” from the report
Indoor smoking
needs fixingSome people continued to smoke indoors at times despite the home's policies and smoking areas. Additional fire safety equipment had been installed where required.
“Some people continued to smoke indoors at times.” from the report
- 01Which bathrooms still need repair or refurbishment, and when will the improvement plan be completed?
- 02How do you manage the fire risks when people smoke indoors?
- 03What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the last comprehensive inspection?
- 04How do you make sure staffing levels continue to meet people's needs when people need support to attend appointments or access the community?
- 05How are medicines audits followed up if a problem is found?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three question ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 January 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.
What inspectors found, December 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but the home needed to improve some safety practices and care records.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 1 November 2017. They spoke with 17 people and 10 staff, reviewed six people's care, observed care in communal areas and checked management records.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. People described staff positively and inspectors saw kind interactions, support with health and nutrition, and many activities in the home and community.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found fire, infection control and food hygiene risks that had not all been dealt with. The registered manager acted on the concerns during or shortly after the visit, including removing furniture from the courtyard.
Some care plans did not clearly or consistently explain how to meet people's physical health needs. Inspectors recommended improving care planning, but did not say that any regulation had been breached.
Kind staff
People were treated with kindness and respect. Inspectors saw staff spending time with people and using calm, warm approaches.
“People were treated with kindness and care by the staff that supported them at the home.” from the report
Good support with health and food
People's health and nutrition were monitored, with referrals and support when needed. Menus offered choice and people were supported to eat and drink enough.
“People received personalised care and support that met their nutritional needs.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in activities, use local services and build confidence with cooking, budgeting and community involvement.
“People were really well supported to engage and do things that mattered to them in the local community.” from the report
Good safeguarding and medicines arrangements
Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Inspectors found medicines records up to date and medicines stored securely.
“People were safe and protected from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Accessible management
People and staff could approach the managers easily. Audits, meetings and surveys helped the service gather views and track improvements.
“The registered manager and deputy manager were open and accessible to people who lived at the home and the staff.” from the report
Safety checks were not always followed through
needs fixingFurniture stored near a smoking area created a possible fire risk. Other observations created possible infection control and food hygiene risks, although the managers acted on the concerns.
“Health and safety risks were identified but action was not always taken to reduce risks.” from the report
Infection and food hygiene practices
needs fixingSome staff did not use protective aprons. Mop heads were drying on radiators and some meals were not covered hygienically when left for later.
“some staff did not follow up to date infection control and food hygiene practices.” from the report
Care plans lacked some physical health detail
needs fixingSome plans were unclear or inconsistent about blood glucose checks, thickener amounts and night-time checks. Inspectors said important information was sometimes held in risk assessments instead of being easy to find.
“some support plans lacked detail in regard to the information provided to direct staff in meeting people's needs.” from the report
- 01What checks now confirm that furniture and other items cannot create a fire risk near smoking areas?
- 02How do you make sure all staff use protective aprons, dry mop heads safely and cover meals hygienically?
- 03How have care plans been updated so staff can clearly find instructions about blood glucose checks, thickened drinks and night-time checks?
- 04How do you check that actions from infection control and health and safety audits have been completed?
- 05How are people and their relatives involved when care plans are reviewed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating, with the previous inspection in April 2015 noted as meeting the regulations inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 December 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 Claro Homes
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Bristol, City of
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 £1,300 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She became a good friend to my mother in law, chatting with her, dancing with her, knitting with her and the list goes on”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.