CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Clifton House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe and comfortable with staff. Risks, staffing, medicines, infection control and premises safety were generally managed well, although some medicines and recruitment records needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- The report says people's health and care needs were supported, and the home worked with GPs, mental health services and hospital specialists. This question was not separately rated in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed staff engaging well with people and providing person-centred care. This question was not separately rated in this inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People could choose their food, activities and how they spent their day. This question was not separately rated in this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager had good oversight, staff understood their roles and feedback was used to improve the service. Some records needed strengthening, but the overall management rating remained Good.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Clifton House was rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and well supported, with some records needing improvement.
The inspection took place without notice on 30 March 2023. One inspector spoke with four people and three staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good, as they were at the previous inspection published in October 2018. The report says there were enough staff, people received their medicines as prescribed, and the home was clean and hygienic.
Inspectors found that people had choice over their food and daily activities. Staff knew people well, treated them respectfully and worked with health and social care professionals. Some records about new medicines, employment gaps and mental capacity assessments needed improvement, and the provider said changes had been made or would be made.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and comfortable with staff. Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report concerns.
“People were safe at the service. People told us they felt safe and comfortable with staff.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices and live as independently as possible, using the least restrictive approach.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests” from the report
Medicines oversight
Inspectors found that people received medicines as prescribed. The electronic system supported clear administration records and audits.
“People received the right support in relation to their medicines and the provider had good oversight of this through electronic systems and audits.” from the report
Person-centred care
People could choose their food, activities and how they spent their day. Staff knew people's needs and treated them respectfully.
“The registered manager promoted a person-centred culture where care was tailored to individual needs.” from the report
Management oversight
The manager carried out checks, reviewed incidents and complaints, and took action when shortfalls were identified.
“The registered manager monitored the safety and quality of the service through various checks and took action when needed to address any gaps or shortfalls at the service.” from the report
Records for newly received medicines
needs fixingRecords showing medicines received when people newly moved into the home could be improved. The provider said improvements had been made after the inspection.
“However, systems to record medicines received for people newly admitted to the service could be improved and the provider confirmed they had made improvements after the inspection.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingRecords of mental capacity assessments were not always good enough. The provider said changes would be made.
“However, we identified records relating to MCA assessments could be improved and the provider confirmed they would make changes.” from the report
Employment history checks
minorRecruitment checks were generally safe, but checks for gaps between previous jobs could be improved.
“The provider checked staff employment histories but checks of gaps between employment could be improved.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to records for medicines received when someone is newly admitted?
- 02How are mental capacity assessments now recorded and reviewed?
- 03How do you check and explain gaps in a job applicant's employment history?
- 04How many staff are usually on duty, and how often is agency cover needed?
- 05How will you tell families about any further improvements made after this inspection?
This was a focused inspection that rated Safe and Well-led; the report did not give separate ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 May 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, October 2018
Clifton House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with improvements made after serious shortfalls at the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 and 10 August 2018. Two inspectors spoke with people living in the home, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment files, audits and safety checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people had suitable risk assessments, access to healthcare, personalised care plans, kind support and activities.
At the previous inspection in November 2017, the home was rated Requires Improvement in every area and had breached several regulations. Inspectors found that the provider had taken the necessary action and was meeting the legal requirements at this inspection.
Personalised care
Care records reflected people's likes, preferences and changing needs. Staff had guidance on how to provide support in ways that suited each person.
“People's care plans were personalised and reflected their preferences for care and support.” from the report
Kind and dignified support
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff treating people politely, protecting their privacy and encouraging independence.
“People received their care and support from staff who were caring.” from the report
Improved safety
The provider had addressed safety problems found at the previous inspection. Risk assessments, environmental checks and safeguarding arrangements were in place.
“At this inspection we found that people's risks were comprehensively assessed.” from the report
Stronger management checks
The home had improved its quality checks and used action plans to address shortfalls. Feedback from people, relatives and staff was reviewed.
“At this inspection we found that the provider had developed robust auditing processes which included action plans to address shortfalls.” from the report
Call bells
needs fixingOn the first day, call bells in one bedroom and one communal bathroom could not be reached easily. The home corrected both issues before the inspection ended.
“However, on the first day of our inspection we found that call bells in one person's bedroom and in one communal bathroom were inaccessible making it difficult for people to summon assistance if required.” from the report
Medicines cabinet checks
needs fixingThe temperature of the medicines cabinet had not been recorded on the first day. A system for monitoring and recording it was put in place by the second day.
“However, on the first day of our inspection the temperature of the medicines cabinet was not recorded.” from the report
Going out
minorPeople gave mixed views about access to activities in the community. The home generally relied on relatives to support outings and was exploring vehicle hire.
“People and staff confirmed that there was generally a reliance on relatives for people to be supported outside of the care home.” from the report
- 01How do you currently support people to go out into the community, and how often can this happen without relying on relatives?
- 02How are call bells checked to make sure people can reach them when they need help?
- 03How often are medicines cabinet temperatures recorded, and what happens if a reading is outside the expected range?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's health, weight, mobility or preferences change?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions, with observations, discussions, record checks and contact with health and social care professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 October 2018 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 Clifton House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 May 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Croydon
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 £980 to £1,230 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.