CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Community Places-Clifton Drive
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough suitably qualified staff, safe recruitment, effective safeguarding, suitable risk management and good infection control. They identified incomplete instructions for some medicines given when needed and weaknesses in medicines audits.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection in 2019.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection in 2019.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection in 2019.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found experienced leadership, person-centred care, staff who felt supported and systems for checking quality and acting on feedback. They recommended strengthening governance systems relating to medicines.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Community Places-Clifton Drive rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care but medicines instructions and checks needed strengthening.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 11 and 12 May 2023. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led because concerns had been received about management and people's care needs. They spoke with 5 people, 6 relatives and 8 staff, and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, training records and audits.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe premises, good infection control and appropriate safeguarding arrangements. They found no evidence that people had been put at risk of harm because of the concerns that led to the inspection.
The main shortfall was medicines management. Some instructions for medicines given when needed were not detailed enough, and medicines audits had not always found the problems. The home acted immediately on the instructions and was given a recommendation to follow best practice.
The overall rating stayed Good, but this was not a full inspection of all five areas. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection in 2019.
Enough suitable staff
There were enough staff, with skills matched to the needs of the people living at the home. Recruitment checks included references and DBS checks.
“People were supported by enough suitably qualified staff.” from the report
Good safeguarding and risk support
Staff understood safeguarding and how to support people who were distressed. Risks were assessed and reviewed, with plans to help people feel safe.
“The staff had a good understanding of the triggers which might make people agitated or anxious.” from the report
Person-centred culture
Staff knew people well, supported their choices and encouraged activities they enjoyed. Inspectors observed staff engaging with people in an unhurried way.
“The registered manager promoted a person-centred culture where care was tailored to individual needs.” from the report
Open management
The manager involved people, relatives and staff through meetings and surveys. Staff said they felt listened to and that issues were acted on.
“The service was open and inclusive.” from the report
Clean and safe environment
The premises and equipment were checked and maintained. Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, hygiene and the use of protective equipment.
“The premises were clean, tidy and hygienic and staff followed current infection control and hygiene practice to reduce the risk of infections.” from the report
Medicines instructions
needs fixingInstructions for some medicines given when needed did not always state the dose and gap between doses clearly enough. The home acted immediately after the inspection, but families should check how this was put right.
“Instructions for medicines that are given when required 'PRN' were not always fully detailed.” from the report
Medicines audits
needs fixingThe home carried out medicines checks, but these checks had not always identified the problems found by inspectors. The provider was asked to strengthen its medicines governance.
“Although, the service was carrying out audits of medicines management these had not always picked up on some of the issues found during the inspection.” from the report
Communication with relatives
minorMost relatives were happy with the service, but some had concerns about communication from the provider. The manager said feedback was being collected and acted on.
“However, some feedback indicated relatives were unhappy with communication from the provider.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to instructions for medicines given when needed after the inspection?
- 02How are medicines audits now checking the dose and timing instructions for each person?
- 03How will you keep relatives updated about changes in care or important incidents?
- 04How are people's individual triggers and calming strategies recorded and shared with all staff?
- 05What evidence can you show that the areas not inspected in 2023 remain suitable for my relative?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive carried over from the previous inspection in 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 June 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, December 2019
Community Places-Clifton Drive was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with effective management.
This was a planned inspection on 3 December 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with four people, three relatives and seven staff. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home supported people with complex learning disabilities, including long-stay and respite care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments and good infection control. People were supported to make choices, build independence, eat well and use health services.
People and relatives described caring relationships with staff. Support was personalised and included people's communication needs, activities and cultural preferences. All five areas were rated Good, the same as at the previous inspection.
Safety and staffing
Inspectors found enough staff for people's assessed needs. Safeguarding, risk management and medicines checks were in place.
“Staffing levels were appropriate to meet the needs of people who used the service.” from the report
Choice and independence
Care focused on choice, control and helping people gain skills. Staff supported people to take part in everyday tasks and activities.
“The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People had positive relationships with staff. Inspectors saw staff supporting privacy, dignity and independence.
“We found staff spoke to people with warmth and respect, and staff considered people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans included people's routines, communication needs, preferences and interests. Staff supported people to take part in activities they enjoyed.
“Plans were written in a person-centred way, meaning that people's wishes were central to the support they received.” from the report
Management and improvement
The home had a clear management structure and regular quality checks. Feedback from relatives led to changes, including recording people's activities.
“The registered manager and provider carried out audits to monitor the quality and performance of the home.” from the report
Larger than current best practice guidance
minorThe home was larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the building design helped reduce any negative impact.
“The service was bigger than most domestic style properties.” from the report
- 01How will you support my relative to build skills and become more independent?
- 02How will staff communicate with my relative and adapt information to their needs?
- 03What activities would be available to my relative, and how would their participation be recorded?
- 04How would you manage my relative's specific health risks, including eating, swallowing or medicines?
- 05How would you involve our family in care planning, reviews and decisions about changes to support?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the ratings for all five areas remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 December 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 Community Places-Clifton Drive
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Community Places-Clifton Drive →
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Community Places-Clifton Drive →
- June 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 August 2016.
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
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Doncaster
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. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“I can honestly say without Petros I don't believe he would have lived an extra 2 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.