CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Claydon House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Claydon House rated Good; inspectors found the home safe and well-led, and its well-led rating improved.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 August 2022. Two inspectors spoke with people living in the home, staff, relatives and health and social care professionals. They also looked at care plans, medicine records, staff files, rotas, infection control records and audits.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood safeguarding, risks were recorded and managed, medicines were given safely, staffing levels were sufficient, and the home was clean and well maintained.
The home was rated Good for Well-led. Inspectors found a positive culture, visible management, regular audits and good communication with people, relatives and staff. The overall rating was Good, the same as at the previous inspection in 2017.
Protection from harm
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and knew what to do if they suspected abuse.
“People who lived at the service were protected from the risk of harm and abuse.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff who administered medicines had training and competency checks.
“Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Strong management
The manager was visible in the home and staff and relatives spoke positively about the management and culture.
“The registered manager had developed a positive culture at the service.” from the report
Family involvement
People and relatives could give feedback through meetings, questionnaires, updates and regular contact with managers.
“People and relatives were fully engaged with the service.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Accidents and incidents were tracked and reviewed. The report found evidence that lessons were learned and shared with staff.
“There was evidence that learning took place when errors occurred.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How is the planned move to a computerised system for care plans progressing?
- 02How do you check that agency staff continue to know each person's risks and care needs?
- 03How do you check that 'as required' medicines are effective and that this is recorded?
- 04How are decisions about bed rails and risks of falling out of bed reviewed under the Mental Capacity Act?
- 05How will relatives be kept informed if visiting arrangements or infection control rules change?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; ratings for the other key questions were not inspected and the overall rating used the previous inspection ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 September 2022 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, November 2017
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found that maintenance and improvements in the older building were not dealt with quickly enough.
Inspectors visited without warning on 25 and 29 September 2017. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff records, complaints, accidents, audits and premises information. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals, and observed care.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines support, appropriate training, attention to health and nutrition, kind staff and personalised care. People were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities.
The well-led rating was Requires Improvement. Quality checks were in place, but the provider had not acted quickly enough on known maintenance and decoration problems. The overall rating remained Good, and the report says record-keeping problems found at the previous inspection had been addressed.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff worked calmly and responded to people at their own pace.
“People's safety and wellbeing was promoted because staff developed positive and meaningful relationships with people and spent time with them.” from the report
Health support
People's health conditions were monitored and staff involved relevant health professionals when needed.
“Records showed that people's health conditions were monitored regularly.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff built caring relationships and respected people's privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“Staff developed positive, caring and compassionate relationships with people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, interests and routines. Staff adapted support when needs changed.
“Care plans were personalised and contained detailed specific routines that were important to certain people.” from the report
Slow action on known issues
needs fixingEnvironmental problems identified through audits and resident surveys had not been dealt with promptly by the provider.
“However we found that there were areas that despite being identified through environmental audits and resident surveys that had not been progressed in a timely way by the provider.” from the report
Older building needed repairs
needs fixingInspectors found water damage, problems with water pooling and damage to some bathroom doors. A maintenance post had been vacant for ten months, although a new person had started and redecoration plans had been made.
“We found that the décor of the older part of the building needed some work to repair ceilings and walls damaged by water.” from the report
- 01Which repairs to the older part of the building have now been completed, and which remain outstanding?
- 02Have the problems with water pooling in wet rooms and communal and en-suite areas been resolved?
- 03How are maintenance requests and issues found in resident surveys tracked to make sure they are completed promptly?
- 04What action has been taken to prevent further water damage to ceilings, walls and bathroom doors?
- 05How will you check that the home's quality assurance systems lead to timely improvements?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the home, covering all five CQC questions and reviewing whether previous concerns had been addressed. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 November 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 Claydon House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 September 2013.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.