CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Clifford House Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being followed. They noted that visitor instructions, enhanced cleaning records and lounge chair spacing needed further development.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control was safe, with some improvements still needed.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 26 January 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus outbreak, rather than giving a full rating.
Inspectors found that visitors were screened, visiting arrangements were risk assessed, and people were supported to keep in touch with relatives when visits were suspended. New admissions were tested and isolated, and staff used the required protective equipment.
The home used extra staff, cleaning, testing and health checks during the outbreak. Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being followed, but noted that visitor signs, cleaning records and lounge chair arrangements needed improvement.
The overall service and Safe question were recorded as inspected but not rated. This report does not give ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive or Well-led.
Visitor infection checks
Visitors were screened for symptoms and visits were carefully arranged to reduce infection risks. When visits were suspended, people were supported to stay in contact with relatives in other ways.
“All visitors were screened for potential symptoms of COVID 19.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had clear procedures for putting on, removing and disposing of protective equipment. Inspectors saw staff using the appropriate equipment for their tasks.
“The registered manager was able to describe the correct level of PPE required to be worn by staff” from the report
Testing and health checks
The home took part in regular testing for people and staff. People also had regular temperature and oxygen level checks.
“People who used the service were having tests once a week, as well as twice daily temperature and oxygen saturation level checks.” from the report
Extra staffing and support
Extra staff were used during the outbreak and while people recovered. This helped with individual activities, redirection, personal support and encouragement with food and fluids.
“Higher staff levels continued to be deployed whilst both people and staff were fully recuperating after having been infected with COVID 19” from the report
Some infection control details needed improvement
needs fixingInspectors said visitor signs needed to be more prominent, cleaning records needed to show how often cleaning took place, and lounge chairs needed to support social distancing more effectively.
“further developing the enhanced cleaning records to clearly show how frequently this cleaning was taking place” from the report
- 01Have the visitor signs been made clearer, and what instructions are now displayed?
- 02Do the enhanced cleaning records now show clearly how often contact points and other areas are cleaned?
- 03How are chairs in the lounge arranged to support social distancing?
- 04What infection control arrangements are currently used for visits, new admissions and people returning from hospital?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak; it did not rate Effective, Caring, Responsive or Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 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, June 2019
Clifford House Residential Care Home was rated Good overall, but inspectors found safety arrangements that Require Improvement.
Inspectors visited without notice on 20 and 22 May 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, recruitment files, rotas and management records.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were described as receiving kind, person-centred care in a friendly and homely setting. Staff supported people's choices, health, meals, activities and contact with relatives.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Some risk assessments and care plans were incomplete or unclear. Incident records did not always capture safety events, and there were medicine recording errors. Recruitment checks and some medicine and infection-control records also needed improvement.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found the service was generally providing good care, but it was not consistently safe in every area. The home had improved since April 2018, including its handling of controlled drugs and its quality audits.
Kind and respectful care
People, relatives and professionals consistently described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Inspectors also saw reassuring and compassionate interactions.
“People continued to be treated with kindness, respect and dignity.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's routines, preferences and interests. Care included choices about meals, activities and daily life, with support for independence.
“Our observations indicated that staff knew people and their individual preferences well” from the report
Clean environment
The home was visibly clean, with cleaning schedules, protective equipment and infection-control checks in place.
“The home was visibly clean including the communal bathrooms and toilets.” from the report
Staffing and support
Staff numbers were considered sufficient, and staff received induction, ongoing training, supervision and appraisals.
“Staff told us they felt well supported and since our last inspection, the registered manager had continued to embed an effective and robust supervision programme” from the report
Activities and involvement
People had access to varied activities and could influence aspects of the home, such as the tuck shop, salon and room flooring.
“An activities coordinator was employed and along with staff, planned and provided opportunities for people to take part in a range of activities.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
seriousSome care plans did not clearly describe important risks, including nutrition, diabetes, leaving the premises and behaviour that could harm others. The report says some documents were updated after the inspection.
“Some of the information about risks to people's safety or wellbeing, was not always clear or comprehensive.” from the report
Incident records and learning
needs fixingSome safety events appeared in other records but not on incident forms. This meant the home did not always have a complete picture or learn fully from what had happened.
“This meant that the opportunity for organisation learning was not being maximised.” from the report
Medicine recording and storage
seriousA medicine had been given but not signed for on three days before the inspection. Records for some as-needed and topical medicines were incomplete, and medicine storage temperatures needed attention.
“A review of medicines administration records (MARs) for one person identified that on the three days prior to the inspection, a medicine had been administered but not signed for.” from the report
Recruitment records
minorOne new staff member initially had only one reference instead of the two required by the home's policy. Another had an incomplete employment history.
“However, one staff member had only one reference provided when they first started to work at the service.” from the report
Some consent records
needs fixingNot all required consent forms and best-interest consultations had been documented. The manager said action would be taken.
“We did note that staff had not documented best interests' consultations.” from the report
- 01How have you updated each person's risk assessment and care plan, especially for nutrition, diabetes, leaving the home and behaviours that may harm others?
- 02What checks now make sure every medicine given is signed for, and that as-needed and topical medicine records are complete?
- 03How do you record, investigate and review all incidents so that lessons are shared and acted on?
- 04Have all recruitment records been completed in line with your policy, including references, employment history and health information?
- 05How are consent forms and best-interest decisions now documented and reviewed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, after the previous inspection in April 2018 rated the service Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 June 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 Clifford House Residential Care Home
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Clifford House Residential Care Home →
- June 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Clifford House Residential Care Home →
- May 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 August 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.