CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Clifftop Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 January 2020. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, supported and happy. Inspectors found kind staff, personalised care, good activities and effective links with health professionals.
The home had improved its medicines management, accident and incident recording, and management oversight since the previous inspection. The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, published on 5 February 2019.
There had been an earlier breach about displaying the service's rating. The provider accepted and paid a fixed penalty notice. The report says the home met the requirements at this inspection.
Safe medicines management
The home had improved how it ordered, stored, administered and checked medicines. Records were completed and audited correctly.
“Improvements had been made to the management of medicines and they were managed safely within the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw respectful and compassionate interactions during the inspection.
“We saw many respectful and compassionate interactions during the day.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's wishes, preferences, communication needs and specific health needs. Staff knew people well and updated plans when needs changed.
“Plans were personalised and relevant to the person.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could join group activities or receive one-to-one support. The home helped people stay in contact with family and friends.
“People were able to enjoy activities in communal areas as a group and the home also provided activities on a one to one basis” from the report
Improved management oversight
The home had strengthened its audits, action plans and recording of accidents and incidents. The report says these systems supported learning and improvement.
“Quality and safety checks helped ensure people were safe and protected from harm.” from the report
Previous rating display breach
needs fixingSince the previous inspection, the provider had failed to meet the requirement to display its rating. This was dealt with through a fixed penalty notice, which was accepted and paid.
“This was a breach of regulation and we issued a fixed penalty notice.” from the report
- 01How are medicines checked now, including occasional medicines and medicines taken away from the home?
- 02How do you review staffing levels when people's needs change?
- 03How are families involved in updating care plans and making best-interest decisions?
- 04What one-to-one activities are available for people who cannot or do not want to join group activities?
- 05How do you use accident and incident records to prevent similar events happening again?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, following the previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 January 2020 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, February 2019
Clifftop Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but unsafe medicine practice and weak quality checks.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 2 and 3 January 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care files, medicine records, staff files, policies and safety records, and observed care and mealtimes.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People received personalised care, were treated with kindness and had their choices respected. Staff were trained and supported, food and healthcare needs were met, and activities and complaints arrangements were in place.
Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that medicines were not always checked, administered or stored safely. The home was also not analysing accidents and incidents properly, and its checks on care quality did not reliably find or address problems. The manager took action during and after the inspection, including arranging medicine retraining and new audits.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives consistently described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Inspectors saw staff spending time with people and offering choices.
“There was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the home.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were personalised and reviewed monthly or when people's needs changed. Staff understood people's communication needs, life histories and preferences.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks included references, health screening and criminal record checks.
“The home had enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicine safety
seriousA staff member giving medicines did not check the medicine record before selecting and giving them. Staff competency checks and medicine audits had not been completed, and some medicines were not stored securely.
“This meant that people were at risk of harm as the member of staff could not be sure if there had been changes to the person's medicine or if it had already been given.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingAudits were incomplete or missing, so the home did not reliably identify shortfalls or monitor the standard of care. The manager sent an audit schedule after the inspection and said audits had started.
“Quality assurance systems were not in place and therefore the service was not able to monitor the standard of care provided.” from the report
Accidents not analysed
needs fixingAccidents and incidents were recorded and immediate actions were taken, but the home was not looking for patterns, lessons or ways to reduce repeat events.
“However, the registered manager told us that analysis of accidents and incidents had not been done and that the home did not have a system in place to learn from events in the home.” from the report
Feedback not followed up
minorThe home had received feedback from people, but records did not show that all concerns or suggestions had been acted on. Formal feedback had not been sought from several groups.
“However, actions from these had not been followed up.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure staff check the medicine record before giving every medicine?
- 02Which staff have had their medicine competency assessed and retraining completed since this inspection?
- 03How often are medicine, falls, accident and call bell audits completed, and who checks that actions are finished?
- 04How do you analyse accidents, incidents and near misses to identify patterns and prevent them happening again?
- 05How do you record and act on feedback from residents, relatives, staff and health professionals?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 February 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 Clifftop Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 August 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
15 live-in carers within about an hour of Dorset
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 £1,040 to £1,340 a week. 11 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Even when things get a bit chaotic (as they sometimes do!), you’ve handled it with patience and a sense of humour — which is gold.”
“Nina was patient, focussed on my aunt's physical well-being, and unfazed by what at the time was a new and uncertain situation”
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.