CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Clumber House Nursing Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Call bells were not always within reach, risks were not always identified or reviewed after incidents, and medication records for creams and ointments had gaps. Infection control, equipment checks and recruitment checks were described as satisfactory.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in detail during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in detail during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in detail during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Audits and checks did not reliably identify risks or improve care. People were not consistently receiving person-centred support, and there was no registered manager in post at the time of the inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with call bells, care records, staffing and management oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 13 and 15 February 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, staff and management records. The home was caring for 38 people, with space for 41.
Inspectors found that people were not always kept safe. Call bells were not always within reach, care plans did not always reflect current needs, and records for prescribed creams and ointments had gaps. There was not always enough staff time to respond quickly or provide social engagement.
The home was also not consistently providing person-centred care. Audits and reviews did not reliably identify risks or prevent incidents happening again. The new manager acted on some concerns during the inspection, but the home breached Regulations 9, 12 and 17. The overall rating changed from Good in 2021 to Requires Improvement.
Action during inspection
The new manager responded promptly to concerns raised by inspectors and had an improvement plan in place.
“Throughout the inspection the manager, management team and staff were open and transparent to feedback given, addressing any concerns or queries throughout.” from the report
Safe recruitment and training
Recruitment checks were completed before staff started, and staff received role-related training and refresher training.
“Recruitment procedures were safe. Checks were carried out on all staff prior to starting their employment, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about the home's arrangements for preventing and managing infections.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Positive communication
People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about communication and support from the management team.
“Relatives gave positive feedback around communication from the management team.” from the report
Call bells and risk management
seriousCall bells were not always within reach, and the home had not always assessed whether people could use them. This meant some people could not easily call for help.
“Staff had not always ensured that call bells were in reach, meaning that people could not access support when needed.” from the report
Care plans and person-centred care
seriousCare plans did not always match people's current needs or the care being provided. People cared for in bed did not always receive enough social interaction.
“People were not consistently receiving person-centred care.” from the report
Staffing and time for people
needs fixingThere was not always enough staff time to respond quickly to people's needs or provide social engagement.
“There was not always enough staff to respond to people's needs quickly.” from the report
Medication records
needs fixingDaily records had gaps showing whether some prescribed creams and ointments had been given.
“We found a number of gaps in daily records for when people should receive their prescribed creams and ointments.” from the report
Weak audits and learning
seriousManagement checks did not always identify problems found by inspectors, and reviews of accidents did not always prevent similar incidents happening again.
“Audits and regular checks to review the quality of care being delivered were not always effective or sufficiently robust.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every person can reach or use their call bell, and how do you record any alternative way they can call for help?
- 02What changes have you made to staffing levels and staff deployment so people receive timely care and social interaction?
- 03How are care plans updated after incidents and checked against the care people actually receive?
- 04How are audits now checking medication records, person-centred care and lessons learned from accidents?
- 05Has the manager's application to become registered been completed, and who is responsible for oversight until then?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 March 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, March 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and clear improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 4 and 5 March 2021. Inspectors spoke with four people, eight relatives and 14 staff. They reviewed care, medicine, recruitment, health and safety and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. People said they felt safe and that staff were kind and attentive. Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, infection controls were followed and staffing was enough to meet people's needs.
The inspection followed concerns about moving and handling safety. Inspectors found no evidence that people had been harmed by these concerns. The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection and was no longer in breach of the regulations identified then.
This was a focused inspection. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so the report used ratings from earlier comprehensive inspections for those areas when calculating the overall rating.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were given as prescribed, including controlled drugs and medicines prescribed when needed.
“People's medicines were managed safely. Nurses who administered medicines were competent for this role” from the report
Infection control
The home had strengthened its infection prevention arrangements. Staff used protective equipment and followed handwashing requirements.
“Staff complied with the requirements to wear protective personal equipment (PPE) and regularly washed their hands.” from the report
Staff training
New staff had an induction and worked alongside experienced staff before working alone. Staff also completed regular competency checks.
“New starters completed a thorough induction whilst shadowing more experienced staff members.” from the report
Management checks
The manager used audits and external compliance reports to check care and identify actions. Inspectors said actions were dealt with promptly.
“Actions identified through the audit system were addressed appropriately and in a timely way.” from the report
Faulty lift
needs fixingThe lift could not reach the top floor during the inspection. A risk assessment was in place for using a short staircase, but families should ask whether the lift has since been repaired.
“the lift was faulty at the time of the inspection and could not reach the top floor of the home.” from the report
Untidy medicines room
minorThe medicines storage room was untidy during the inspection. The manager acted immediately to clear it and support safe medicines administration.
“The medicines storage room was untidy. The general manager took immediate action during the inspection” from the report
- 01Has the lift been repaired, and what arrangements are used if it is unavailable?
- 02How do you keep the medicines storage room tidy and check this regularly?
- 03What are the current ratings and findings for Caring and Responsive from the earlier comprehensive inspection?
- 04How do you check that each person's moving and handling risks remain up to date?
- 05How will you tell families if there is a serious incident or a change in their relative's care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and earlier ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 March 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 Clumber House Nursing Home
7 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- March 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 November 2012.
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 Cheshire East
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. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.