CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Clearbury
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable risks, and there were enough staff to meet their needs. Medicines were stored and given safely, but some handwritten medicine records were not dated or signed and guidance for some as-required medicines was missing.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training linked to people's health, communication and behavioural support needs. Staff supported people with food, health appointments, decision-making and the least restrictive care possible.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind, respectful and friendly interactions. Staff used British Sign Language, respected people's choices and beliefs, and supported independence and relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, current and based on each person's needs, preferences and interests. People had varied activities, support with future plans and an accessible complaints procedure.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team provided clear oversight and used audits, meetings and feedback to review the service. Records were organised, current and kept securely.
What inspectors found, October 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some medicines records still needing better checks.
The home provides residential care and therapeutic support for up to four young people aged 16 to 25 who are profoundly deaf or have significant hearing loss and complex needs. Four people were living there during the inspection.
Inspectors visited on 17 and 24 August 2017. They spoke with three people, five staff and six health and social care professionals. They observed care and reviewed care files, recruitment records, training records and other documents.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were described as safe, supported by trained staff, treated kindly and given personalised care.
Medicines management had improved since the previous inspection, when Safe was rated Requires Improvement. However, inspectors recommended that the home follow national good practice because some medicine records were incomplete and written guidance for some medicines was missing.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and provided compassionate support. Inspectors saw a friendly atmosphere and respectful interactions.
“Our observations showed staff to be kind, interested and caring.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans reflected people's preferences and goals. People were helped to build daily living skills, take part in activities and plan for greater independence.
“People received responsive and personalised care that was based on their needs, preferences and interests.” from the report
Safety and staffing
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, including one-to-one and two-to-one support where required. Staff understood safeguarding and risk management.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Good management oversight
The home used audits, meetings and feedback to identify improvements and learn from incidents. Records were well organised and confidential.
“There was an effective quality monitoring system in place.” from the report
Medicine records and guidance
needs fixingSome handwritten medicine entries were not dated or signed by two staff, and audits had not identified this. Two people also lacked written guidance about when to use as-required medicines.
“However handwritten entries had been made to MARs by staff; these had not been dated or signed by two staff to confirm accuracy and accountability.” from the report
Previous medicines errors
seriousThere had been two medicines errors in the previous 12 months. They had not harmed anyone, but the home was advised to follow national good practice.
“There had been two medicines errors in the past 12 months. The errors had not caused harm to people using the service.” from the report
Stained communal carpets
minorCarpets in communal areas looked stained and dirty. Replacement carpets had been planned but were not yet in place at the inspection.
“Carpets in the communal lounge and hallways and stairs were stained and looked dirty.” from the report
Temporary shared Wi-Fi restriction
needs fixingWi-Fi access was limited for everyone because of one person's risk. The management team said a separate connection for others was due to be installed within six weeks.
“Wi-Fi access was limited to all people using the service.” from the report
- 01Have the medicine records been changed so every handwritten entry is dated and signed as required?
- 02Is there now written guidance for each person's as-required medicine?
- 03Were the communal carpets replaced after the inspection?
- 04Was a separate Wi-Fi connection installed so other people could use the internet without the restriction?
- 05How will you support my relative to develop independence with money management?
This was an announced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and included discussions with people, staff and health and social care professionals, observations and records checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 October 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 Clearbury
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2017Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 January 2014.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.