CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cloud House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. The home had enough staff, individual risk assessments, safe medicines systems and procedures for safeguarding and infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive and open leadership, regular contact with people and relatives, clear staff roles and audits intended to improve care.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, personalised care and positive leadership, but this was a focused inspection.
Inspectors visited on 28 November 2023. Two inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files, rotas, audits and other management records.
The safe and well-led parts of the home were rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable recruitment checks and systems to protect people from abuse and manage risks.
People received personalised support and were able to make day-to-day choices. Inspectors also found an open management culture, regular communication and systems for checking and improving the service.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe with staff. The home had safeguarding procedures and staff knew how to respond to concerns.
“People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained to support people with medicines. Inspectors found that medicines had been given as prescribed and records were completed.
“We looked at the MARs for all the people who used the service and noted medicines had been administered as prescribed.” from the report
Consistent staffing
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. The home did not use agency staff, which supported consistency and continuity.
“The provider did not use agency staff. This helped with consistency and continuity of care as staff were aware of the needs of people they were caring for.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff described managers as approachable and supportive. The home used meetings, surveys and audits to gather views and identify improvements.
“The registered manager operated an 'open door' policy and were in regular contact with people, relatives and staff to ensure the service ran smoothly.” from the report
Bathroom maintenance
minorInspectors found a rusting shower curtain rail and uneven bathroom tiles. Managers said the bathroom was planned for refurbishment and the rail would be replaced in the meantime.
“We noted the shower curtain rail in the upstairs flat bathroom was rusting however the rest of the bathroom was clean. Some tiles needed to be refitted as they were very uneven in places.” from the report
- 01Has the rusting shower curtain rail been replaced and have the uneven tiles been refitted?
- 02How are my relative's individual risks assessed and reviewed when their needs change?
- 03How will you make sure medicines are given safely and recorded accurately for my relative?
- 04How does the home involve relatives in reviewing care and sharing changes in needs?
- 05How does the home work with GPs, psychologists and community learning disability services when health concerns arise?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the Effective, Caring and Responsive ratings were carried over from the previous inspection published on 15 August 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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, August 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor improvements still needed in staff training and care records.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 26 June 2018. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and the manager. They also checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files, rotas, audits and safety records.
The home supported up to ten women with mental health conditions, learning disabilities or substance misuse problems. Seven people lived there during the inspection. Inspectors found safe medicines systems, enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, detailed risk assessments and good infection control.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff supported individual choices, independence, activities and communication needs. All five areas were rated Good. This was an improvement from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, and the report says all previous breaches had been addressed.
Safer medicines
Medicines records were accurate, medicines were locked away, and daily checks helped confirm people received them as prescribed.
“We found accurate records were in place for the ordering, receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff respond with kindness and support people's privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion by staff at the service.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, communication methods, relationships, health needs and goals for independence.
“Care plans were person-centred and provided staff with essential information about people and their care needs.” from the report
Improved management
The home had acted on problems found at the previous inspection and had stronger quality checks and reporting arrangements.
“At this inspection we found the service had addressed all previous breaches and improvements had been made.” from the report
Training delivery
needs fixingInternal training was delivered by staff who had not completed a Train the Trainer course. Inspectors said this could affect how best practice information was passed on, and made a recommendation.
“Internal training was delivered within the service, however; the staff who gave this had not completed a 'Train the Trainer' course themselves.” from the report
Recording people's involvement
needs fixingThe risk assessments checked by inspectors had blank sections for people's agreement and comments. The home was advised to improve how it records people's involvement in their care and support.
“However, in the risk assessments we looked at these were blank.” from the report
- 01How have you acted on the recommendation about staff delivering training without a Train the Trainer course?
- 02How do you now record a person's agreement, comments and involvement in their risk assessments?
- 03How many current staff have worked here for more than 12 months, and how do you maintain continuity for residents?
- 04How are medicines checked each day, and how are changes after GP or hospital reviews recorded?
- 05What activities and support are currently available for each person's communication, independence and community goals?
This was a scheduled, unannounced inspection covering all five rating areas and checking improvements required after the previous Requires Improvement inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 August 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 Cloud House
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 November 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Barking and Dagenham
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. 79 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is a safe pair of hands and her years of experience certainly shine through.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.