CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Clevedon Court Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and inspectors found enough staff and safe recruitment procedures. However, care planning and some records were not always detailed or complete enough.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, staff received training and supervision, and staff worked with health professionals. People had suitable food choices and were supported with their dietary needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind and respectful. Inspectors saw staff offering comfort, drinks and snacks, while people and relatives were involved in care decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The home provided person-centred care, activities and support for communication. Care plans were not always detailed enough, and some end of life plans lacked religious and cultural details.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was described as open and committed to improvement. The home had a positive person-centred culture and involved people and relatives in decisions.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but care planning and care records were not always detailed enough.
This was the first comprehensive inspection under the current ownership. It was unannounced and took place on 30 May 2023. One inspector and a nurse specialist advisor spoke with people, a relative, staff and the manager, and reviewed care and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were treated kindly. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable medicines systems, good staff support and effective work with health professionals.
There were some gaps in care planning and recording. Instructions were not always detailed enough, repositioning records had gaps, and end of life plans did not always include religious and cultural needs. The home acted promptly on the issues raised and sent CQC an action plan.
Kind and respectful staff
People said staff treated them well, and inspectors saw kind and caring interactions. Staff respected people's choices about privacy and activities.
“People told us they were happy living in the home. They told us staff were kind and caring and treated them well.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
People said staff were available and usually responded promptly to call bells. The home used checks such as references and DBS checks when recruiting.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Good involvement of families
People and relatives were involved in planning care and could raise concerns or request meetings. The home also shared information with families through meetings and newsletters.
“People and their representatives were encouraged to be involved in planning and making decisions about their care.” from the report
Food and choice
Menus were adapted to people's dietary needs and people could ask for alternatives. Inspectors heard that individual requests were accommodated.
“People were happy with the meals in the home; menus were planned according to people's needs and people could request alternatives if they didn't want what was on the menu.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not give staff clear enough instructions to support people safely. The home put more specific plans in place after inspectors raised this.
“We found that care planning wasn't always sufficiently detailed to ensure staff had clear instructions on how to support people safely.” from the report
Gaps in repositioning records
needs fixingRecords for people at risk of pressure damage had gaps longer than the recommended intervals. The provider said care had taken place but was not always recorded at the time.
“Records showed that for people at risk of pressure damage to the skin, there was some gaps that were longer than the recommended intervals for support with repositioning.” from the report
End of life plans
needs fixingSome end of life care plans did not include enough personal detail about religious and cultural needs. This was fed back to the manager.
“There was some care planning in place for people at the end of their life; however these lacked some person centred details such as their religious and cultural needs.” from the report
Medicine timing error
minorInspectors found one error in the recorded timing of antibiotics. The provider took action to reduce the risk of this happening again.
“For one person we noted there had been an error in the timings of antibiotics being administered, however this was due to an error in information recorded on the system.” from the report
- 01How do you check that every care plan gives staff clear instructions, especially for PEG and catheter care?
- 02How do you make sure repositioning is carried out at the required intervals and recorded at the time?
- 03How will you update end of life plans to include each person's religious and cultural wishes?
- 04What changes were made after the error in the recorded timing of antibiotics?
- 05Can we see the action plan sent to CQC and how you are checking that the improvements have lasted?
This was the first unannounced comprehensive inspection under the current ownership and assessed all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; an earlier targeted inspection did not give the home a rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 August 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, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control and visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 20 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors found good systems for infection control. Staff used protective equipment safely, testing was available, and the home had arrangements to prevent and manage outbreaks.
People and families said they were pleased with the care and infection-control measures. The home had a booking system and a separate visiting area, which was cleaned after each visit.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating.
Infection control
The home had systems for PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing and managing outbreaks. Inspectors were assured that these measures were in place.
“The home had good systems and processes in place to maintain safe infection control measures.” from the report
Safe visiting
The home offered booked visits in a designated area and cleaned the area after each visit. Families were told about changes by email and phone.
“The provider had alternative arrangements in place for visiting during the outbreak to ensure people were able to see visitors safely and communicate with their families.” from the report
Positive views from people
People told inspectors they were happy with their care, and families said they were pleased with the care and infection-control arrangements.
“People were happy with the care they were receiving.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you managing staffing pressures now, and how often do you need existing staff to work additional shifts or use agency staff?
- 02How do you currently test people and staff for infections, and what happens if there is an outbreak?
- 03How are visits arranged now, and is the designated visiting area still available?
- 04How do you make sure visiting professionals meet the current COVID-19 vaccination requirements or have an exemption?
- 05What quality ratings or assessments are available for care areas that were not covered by this inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 March 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.
Every inspection of Clevedon Court Nursing Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 January 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North Somerset
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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.