CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Clover House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Risk assessments, staffing, recruitment, medicines and infection control were generally managed safely, but some incidents had not been reported to CQC as required.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and supervision, and people were supported with food, drinks and healthcare. However, capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not always completed correctly.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity and respect. People and relatives gave consistently positive feedback, and care planning included people's wishes and preferences.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People were offered choices, activities and opportunities to go out, and complaints had been investigated and answered.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had supportive leadership, a positive staff culture and systems for checking quality. It had introduced a full contingency business plan after the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but some incident reporting and mental capacity records needed improvement.
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection on 2 July 2018. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and the manager. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records, complaints, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. There were six people living at the home, which can support up to six adults with mental health issues and/or learning disabilities.
People said they felt safe and were treated kindly and with respect. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe recruitment, safe medicines systems, person-centred care, activities and good support from managers. The home had also improved its emergency planning since the previous inspection.
There were two areas needing attention. Some incidents had not been reported to CQC as required, and mental capacity assessments and best-interest records were not always correct or consistent. The report made recommendations about both points.
People felt safe
Everyone spoken with said they felt safe with staff. Inspectors found updated risk assessments and enough staff to meet people's needs.
“Everyone we spoke with told us they felt safe with staff who supported them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were seen speaking respectfully and protecting people's dignity and privacy. People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care.
“We saw staff speaking with people who lived at the home in a respectful and dignified manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records reflected people's histories, beliefs, likes and wishes. People were offered choices about daily life and activities.
“Each person had a care plan which was tailored to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
The home had enough staff, used safer recruitment checks and managed medicines consistently. Checks found medicines were being given as prescribed.
“Random sampling of people's medicines, against their medicine records confirmed they were receiving their medicines as prescribed by their GP.” from the report
Improved emergency planning
The home had acted on the previous inspection's recommendation by putting a full contingency business plan in place.
“We found the home has implemented a full contingency business plan to ensure the home could continue to be provided in the event of an emergency.” from the report
Some incidents were not reported to CQC
needs fixingInspectors found some incidents had not been reported to CQC in line with regulations. The manager showed that they had been safeguarded and reported to the local authority where appropriate.
“We did find some incidents had not been reported to CQC as per the regulations.” from the report
Mental capacity records were not always correct
needs fixingPeople's capacity to consent had not always been fully assessed, and records sometimes conflicted. Inspectors said the correct best-interest process had not always been followed.
“We found people's capacity to consent to care had not always been fully assessed and information was at times conflicting.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure every incident that must be reported is sent to CQC on time?
- 02Have you completed and checked the mental capacity assessments and best-interest records identified in this report?
- 03How do you make sure staff follow the latest mental capacity decisions and least restrictive approaches?
- 04How often is the contingency business plan tested and reviewed?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and raising concerns?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and the ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all given as Good. 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 Clover House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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 £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.