CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cloverdale Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, risks were assessed and reviewed, staff were safely recruited, and there were enough staff. Medicines and infection control were also managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective checks on quality and safety. The manager reviewed incidents, acted on issues and involved people and staff in decisions.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care and improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 28 April 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors found people felt safe and well cared for, staffing was sufficient, medicines were managed safely and infection control arrangements were effective.
The inspection focused only on Safe and Well-led. Both were rated Good. The other areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they were happy with the care and felt safe. Staff understood how to protect people from abuse.
“People said they felt safe with the staff who supported them.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had suitable training and recruitment checks had been completed.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe medicines and infection control
People received medicines safely and on time. Inspectors were assured about cleaning, protective equipment, testing and arrangements for visits.
“People received their medicines safely.” from the report
Improved management
The home had improved its monitoring and governance since the previous inspection. Checks and incident reviews were used to make changes.
“A clear auditing system was in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.” from the report
People were involved
People and relatives were asked for their views. Suggestions were acted on, and people helped make decisions about the home.
“People were consulted and involved in day to day decisions about the running of the home through regular meetings.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current ratings and latest findings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not covered by this inspection?
- 02How will you continue the improvements made after the previous breach of Regulation 17?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels remain enough when people's needs change?
- 04How are my relative's views used in their care plan and everyday decisions?
- 05What improvements are included in the current plan for the environment, internet access and activities?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 May 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, November 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety checks and quality monitoring were not reliable.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 18 and 21 October 2019. One inspector spoke with people, a relative and staff, observed care, looked around the home and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
People were generally happy with the care. Staff were described as kind and respectful. People had choices about their routines, food, activities and care. Staff supported healthcare needs and helped people maintain relationships.
There were important shortfalls in safety. Cream records did not show whether medicines had been applied as prescribed. Some radiators were uncovered, water checks were incomplete and some areas were difficult to clean. The manager acted promptly on these issues during the inspection.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. The home had been rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 19 April 2017.
Kind and respectful care
People were happy with the care and staff supported them calmly, respectfully and at their own pace. Privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.
“Staff were kind, attentive, respectful and maintained people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Personalised support
People and their families helped develop care plans. Staff supported people's choices, routines, communication needs and decisions.
“People and their families were included in developing detailed, person-centred care plans.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People had varied food and suitable support with eating and drinking. Staff helped people access healthcare and followed professional advice.
“People were provided with a varied and healthy diet.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities suited to their interests and receive visitors when they chose. Links with local schools and nurseries supported social involvement.
“People were supported to engage in a wide range of stimulating activities.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousRecords did not clearly show whether prescribed creams had been applied. Some as-needed medicine records also did not include the administration time.
“Medicine records for prescribed creams were not appropriately completed and did not show if they had been applied as prescribed.” from the report
Environmental and cleaning risks
seriousTwo radiators were uncovered and water temperature checks were incomplete, creating a risk of burns. Some equipment and bathroom flooring also needed cleaning or repair.
“Two radiators were uncovered, and hot water temperature checks were not fully completed, which placed people at risk of burns.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousThe home's systems failed to identify several problems. Accident and incident information had not been analysed for three months while a new audit system was being introduced.
“The governance systems in place had failed to pick up the issues we identified during our inspection.” from the report
Some staff supervision was overdue
needs fixingNot all staff had received supervision in line with the provider's policy. The manager was working to put regular supervision and appraisals in place.
“Not all staff had received supervision in line with the provider's policy.” from the report
- 01How are prescribed creams and as-needed medicines now recorded and checked?
- 02What was done to cover the radiators and make sure hot water checks are completed?
- 03How are cleaning standards, including bathroom flooring and bedrail bumpers, now monitored?
- 04How are accidents and incidents analysed so lessons are acted on?
- 05Has the manager's CQC registration application been completed, and how are staff supervision and appraisals being kept up to date?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided; the previous overall rating was Good, published in April 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 November 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 Cloverdale Care Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 January 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
12 live-in carers within about an hour of North East Lincolnshire
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 £1,350 a week. 10 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
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.