CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Conquest House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were safe. They found suitable arrangements for visitors, PPE, testing, hygiene, distancing and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Conquest House: Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were safe.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 2 December 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found good measures for visitors, including handwashing, temperature checks, health questionnaires and full personal protective equipment. People living in the home were separated into small bubbles, with allocated staff and separate communal areas.
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely, followed shielding and distancing rules, supported testing, kept the building clean and had an up-to-date infection control policy.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas of care.
Visitor safety checks
The home restricted visitors to essential visits and used several checks and protective measures for anyone entering.
“Any person entering the building washed their hands-on entry, had their temperature taken, completed a health questionnaire and wore full personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Separate living bubbles
Residents were grouped into bubbles of no more than four people. Each bubble had its own communal area and allocated staff, with senior staff following protective equipment procedures when moving between areas.
“People living in the service had been separated into 'bubbles' of no more than four people.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors saw the building being cleaned and observed regular cleaning and disinfection of communal areas, bathrooms and frequently touched surfaces.
“The building was clean and free from clutter.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What visitor checks and protective equipment rules are in place now?
- 02How are residents grouped, and how do you prevent staff moving infections between different groups?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 04How do you help each resident understand infection control measures such as masks and handwashing?
- 05How do you clean and disinfect frequently touched areas?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 December 2020 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, February 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety required improvement because mental health information and accident learning were not always strong enough.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 November and 11 December 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, safety records and quality checks, and observed care.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicine procedures and detailed risk assessments.
The main safety concerns were that some staff lacked knowledge about people's mental health needs, some important background information was missing, and there was no ongoing analysis of accidents and incidents. People also reported feeling unsafe when other people's behaviour became challenging.
The home had a new manager who was applying to become the registered manager. Inspectors found a quality assurance process, regular audits and action plans for improvement.
Kind and respectful staff
People said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff respond calmly and support people's dignity and privacy.
“We saw staff treated people with kindness and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's preferences, goals and the way they wanted support. People were encouraged to make choices and be independent.
“Care plans gave staff clear guidance on people's preferences.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Staff were trained and checked as competent to give medicines. Records, stock checks and audits supported people to receive medicines as prescribed.
“This meant that people received their medication as prescribed.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could take part in activities, trips and household tasks. Staff supported people to maintain interests and use the local community.
“There was a varied programme of activities including in-house group activities, one-to-one activities, entertainers and trips out.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, feedback and action plans to identify improvements. The provider's quality team supported the manager with this work.
“There was a quality assurance system in place to ensure that, where needed, improvements were made in the home.” from the report
Mental health knowledge and safety
seriousSome staff did not have enough knowledge or experience of people's mental health needs. Healthcare professionals felt this could mean missed chances to prevent behaviour that challenged others, and two people reported physical abuse from other residents.
“Staff did not always have the knowledge or experience about people's mental health needs.” from the report
Accidents were not reviewed for patterns
needs fixingStaff followed the accident and incident procedure, but there was no continuing analysis to identify patterns or trends. This could mean missed opportunities to learn and prevent things happening again.
“There was no on-going process in place to analyse accidents and incidents to identify any patters or trends.” from the report
Some important information was missing
needs fixingFor some people, records did not contain enough information about their history, admission assessment or mental health conditions. The manager said more information and training would be sought.
“For some of the people living at Conquest House there was a lack of information such as pre admission assessments and possible mental health conditions.” from the report
Unclear medicine cream instructions
minorMedicine administration was generally well managed, but written guidance did not always clearly say where creams should be applied.
“However, we found that there was not always clear written guidance about where on the body creams should be applied.” from the report
Restrictions on people's choices
needs fixingSome house rules restricted choices without a clear reason, including a limit on smoking outside and requiring gloves when preparing food. The manager said unnecessary restrictions would be removed.
“When we asked the manager and staff why the rule was in place no one was able to give us a reason” from the report
- 01What information do you now have about my relative's mental health history and previous support needs?
- 02What mental health and positive behaviour support training have staff completed, and how is their competence checked?
- 03How do you now analyse accidents and incidents for patterns, and what changes have resulted?
- 04How are staffing levels decided at night, especially if people are awake or behaviour becomes challenging?
- 05Which house rules have been removed or reviewed, and how do you make sure restrictions on choice are justified?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 February 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 Conquest House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 November 2010.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.