CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cloverdale House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People had detailed risk assessments, staff understood individual risks and inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines, safeguarding, building safety and infection control were also found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training, supervision and support. People's health, nutrition and hydration needs were met, and the home worked with health and social care professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed kind and respectful interactions. Staff supported people to communicate, make choices, maintain their dignity and develop their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and included people's communication needs, goals and preferences. People took part in activities, trips and community events as pandemic restrictions eased.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive leadership, good staff morale and effective quality checks. Records and audits were used to identify shortfalls and support improvements.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Cloverdale House rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the building is larger than current best-practice guidance suggests.
Inspectors visited on 16 and 17 November 2021. They spoke with one resident, four staff members and three relatives by telephone. They observed how people were supported and reviewed care records, medicines records, training records and quality checks.
The home received Good ratings in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, personalised care plans, kind interactions and good support for people's health, communication, activities and independence.
The home was registered before current guidance for people with learning disabilities and autistic people was developed. Inspectors said the building was larger than current best-practice guidance suggests, although it was made homely and welcoming and met most of the guidance's principles.
This was the home's first rated inspection. A targeted inspection in March 2021 looked only at infection control and did not give an overall rating.
Personalised care
Care plans gave staff detailed guidance about people's needs, preferences, communication and goals. Families were involved in developing care plans.
“People's support plans were person-centred and comprehensive providing information and guidance about people's health and care needs, and how best to support them.” from the report
Kind staff
Inspectors saw positive interactions between people and staff. Relatives also gave positive feedback about the care and attention provided.
“We observed a kind and caring culture.” from the report
Safety and medicines
Staff understood people's risks and knew how to reduce them. Medicines records checked by inspectors were accurate, and medicines were stored and disposed of safely.
“The MARs we looked at were completed accurately.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff used accessible communication methods to help people make choices. People were supported to work towards goals and take part in activities and community events.
“Staff used picture books and easy read documents to enable people to make choices around food, activities and how they spent their day.” from the report
Leadership and monitoring
The home had quality checks covering areas such as medicines, training, the environment and infection control. Staff described a positive culture and inspectors found good morale.
“Quality assurance systems were effective, and we saw a number of audits, checks and monitoring systems including; the environment, medicines, training and infection control.” from the report
Building is larger than current guidance suggests
minorThe home is a large domestic property. Inspectors said its size was greater than current best-practice guidance for this type of service, although they found it homely and welcoming.
“The service was a large domestic property, that was bigger than would be considered in line with current best practice guidelines.” from the report
- 01How does the home's larger size affect the way support is provided to my relative?
- 02How will you involve my relative and our family in updating their person-centred care plan and goals?
- 03How will you support my relative's preferred ways of communicating and making choices?
- 04What activities and community opportunities are currently available, and how are they matched to each person's interests?
- 05How do you cover staff sickness and annual leave, and how do you make sure replacement staff know my relative's needs?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the March 2021 targeted inspection had looked only at infection control and did not give a rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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, April 2021
Cloverdale House: targeted inspection found good COVID-19 infection control, but the home was inspected and not rated.
Inspectors visited the home on 30 March 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic. It looked at infection prevention and control rather than the full range of care.
They found that the home was clean, with frequent cleaning of high-touch areas. Communal spaces had been arranged for social distancing, staff used appropriate PPE and infection control procedures were understood and followed.
People and staff took part in regular COVID-19 testing. Easy-read information and activity workshops helped people understand COVID-19 and how to protect themselves.
The overall service and safe rating were both recorded as inspected but not rated. This report therefore does not give a full quality rating for the home.
Clean environment
The home was clean and tidy, with regular cleaning of areas that people touched frequently.
“The home was clean and tidy. Staff worked through all parts of the home to maintain cleanliness and good infection control.” from the report
PPE and infection control
Staff used appropriate PPE, supplies were plentiful and infection control policies were understood and followed.
“Staff were seen to be wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), and there was a plentiful supply evident throughout the home.” from the report
Support for understanding COVID-19
The home used easy-read information and activities to help people understand COVID-19 and how to protect themselves.
“Through the use of easy read documentation and innovative activity workshops, staff had helped people understand the impact of COVID-19” from the report
Testing arrangements
People and staff took part in the testing programme, with results recorded and checked regularly.
“Staff and people were fully engaged in the appropriate COVID-19 testing regime.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently kept safe from catching or spreading infections?
- 02How often are staff and residents tested now, and how are the results monitored?
- 03How do you check that staff remain competent in infection prevention and control?
- 04What arrangements are in place to prevent or manage an infection outbreak?
- 05How are easy-read information and activities used to help residents understand health risks?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 April 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.
Every inspection of Cloverdale House
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 September 2020.
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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Brighton and Hove
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 £1,020 to £1,280 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Lottie showed incredible patience and empathy, adapting her routine to fit in with Mum's moods. Most importantly, Lottie's cheerful manner helped Mum to get some enjoyment out of life.”
“He was infinitely patient with them and got on very well with us to the extent that we now regard him as a personal friend.”
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.