CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Clayburn Court
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including visitor checks, safe admissions, testing, protective equipment, cleaning and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 16 February 2021. It was a targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic, focused on infection prevention and control.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, admissions, testing, shielding, social distancing and protective equipment safely. They were also assured that the home had suitable cleaning, hygiene and outbreak arrangements.
The home was not given an overall quality rating. The Safe question was recorded as inspected but not rated, so this report does not provide a current rating of the wider care.
Visitor safety
Visitors had checks before admission. End-of-life visits were arranged to reduce contact with other people in the home.
“external health and social care visitors had a series of checks completed before admission into the home.” from the report
Family communication
Families were kept informed through a monthly online meeting and a weekly newsletter, including updates about restrictions and vaccinations.
“A family meeting is held each month via zoom to discuss the service, COVID-19 restrictions and updates including vaccinations.” from the report
Cleaning and hygiene
Inspectors saw regular cleaning during the visit, including attention to frequently touched areas.
“frequently touched areas such as handrails, chairs, tabletops, handles and furniture are cleaned regularly throughout the day.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff changed into uniform and put on protective equipment before starting work. Inspectors were assured that protective equipment was used safely.
“Staff changed into their uniform and put on their personal protective equipment (PPE) before starting work.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently checked before entering the home?
- 02How does the home now manage testing and protective equipment for staff and residents?
- 03How are infection outbreaks prevented and managed now?
- 04Are monthly family meetings and weekly newsletters still being provided?
- 05How are end-of-life visits arranged to reduce contact with other people in the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated overall or for the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 2021 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 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but care records, activities, safety systems and leadership needed improvement.
The unannounced inspection took place on 29 October 2019. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, visitors, managers and staff, and checked five people's care records, medicines records and management audits.
The home was rated Good for Effective and Caring. People generally received kind care, had food choices, access to health professionals and support to make decisions. Staff were described as compassionate and respectful.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Some care plans and risk assessments were out of date, unclear or contradictory. Activities were limited, and safety systems had not always been followed.
The overall rating means the home was not consistently meeting the expected standard. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 29 September 2017. The provider had an action plan with local authority support, and CQC said it would continue to monitor the home.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with patience, dignity and compassion. Staff knew people's preferences and supported them to make choices.
“People and their relatives had positive comments about the care and support provided by staff.” from the report
Health and nutrition support
People could choose their food and drink, and staff involved specialist professionals when needed. Healthcare needs were met in a timely way.
“People's healthcare needs were met in a timely way.” from the report
Staff training and recruitment
Recruitment checks were completed before new staff started. Almost all staff were up to date with the training the provider considered mandatory.
“The management team had followed the procedure and all the required checks had been completed before new staff were allowed to start work.” from the report
Open management approach
Managers were described as approachable and had developed an action plan with local authority support. People, relatives and staff were involved through meetings and surveys.
“The regional manager was open and honest about the improvements which were needed.” from the report
Unclear care and risk records
seriousSome care plans and risk assessments were out of date, lacked detail or contradicted other information. This meant staff did not always have clear instructions to meet people's needs safely.
“Care plans and risk assessments were not all up to date, and some had conflicting information so did not provide clear information to staff to fully meet people's needs.” from the report
Safety procedures not always followed
seriousThe provider had safeguarding systems, but these had not always been followed. One risk plan did not contain enough guidance, and the home also had malodours in one main area.
“However, these had not always followed.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingActivities were limited at the time of inspection. One person wanted more opportunities to leave the building, and the home had moved away from employing an activities co-ordinator.
“Staff told us that activities were limited at present but there was motivation for all to support people in daily living activities.” from the report
Leadership still settling
needs fixingThe new manager was still completing the company induction, and there was no manager registered with CQC. Some improvements had been made but still needed to be embedded.
“Several of the actions had been completed whilst others had been achieved they still need to be embedded.” from the report
- 01Which care plans and risk assessments were incomplete or contradictory, and how will you make sure they are now accurate and personalised?
- 02How do you check that safeguarding and other safety procedures are followed every time?
- 03What activities and trips out are currently available for people who do not enjoy bingo or similar group activities?
- 04Has the new manager completed the company induction, and when will the manager be registered with CQC?
- 05How do you check that the improvement plan is completed and that changes continue over time?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions, including the premises and care provided; it was prompted partly by concerns about leadership. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 December 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 Clayburn Court
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 July 2015.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Peterborough
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 £1,370 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I honestly feel lucky to have found her and have already booked her for another visit.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.