CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cornelius House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safe recruitment, enough staff, effective risk management and safe medicines. The home also had infection control, fire safety and maintenance checks in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and support to meet people's needs. Food, drinks and access to health professionals were well managed, and staff understood how to support people's choices.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- People, relatives and professionals were exceptionally positive about the staff. Inspectors saw kindness, compassion, respect for dignity and support for people's independence and wellbeing.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People were involved in planning their care, received activities they enjoyed and had their end of life wishes supported.
- Well-led?
- Good
- A new management team and clearer leadership structure were in place. Quality checks, feedback and improvement plans were being used to raise standards.
What inspectors found, May 2018
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding caring; inspectors found the home safe and improved since the last inspection.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 8 March 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a health professional. They reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment, training, complaints and checks on quality.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Caring was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found kind and compassionate staff, personalised care, safe medicines, enough staff and good support with food, drinks and health needs.
The previous inspection in November 2016 had rated the home Requires Improvement. At this inspection, medicines were managed safely and changes to the management structure had addressed earlier concerns about who was in charge and how information was shared.
Kind and compassionate care
People and relatives described staff as exceptionally caring. Inspectors found that staff took time to make people feel valued and treated them with dignity.
“People and their relatives told us staff were exceptionally dedicated, caring and kind.” from the report
Safer medicines
The medicine problems found at the previous inspection had been addressed. Staff were trained and checked, and medicine records were complete.
“We found robust medicine procedures were now in place to help ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's routines, preferences, communication needs and independence. People and families were involved in planning and reviewing care.
“People received personalised care and support, which was responsive to their changing needs.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had a new registered manager, deputy manager and team leader roles. People knew who was in charge, and quality checks were being used to guide improvements.
“The staffing structure had developed since the previous inspection to share the leadership roles across the staff team.” from the report
Support at the end of life
The home worked with health professionals to provide compassionate end of life care. It aimed to let people remain at the home when this was their wish.
“They worked hard to ensure people who wished to remain at the home during their final days were able to, comfortable and pain free.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are medicines checked now, and how do you support people who want to manage some of their own medicines?
- 02How often will my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed, and how will our family be involved?
- 03What activities and outings would be available for someone with my relative's interests, mobility and communication needs?
- 04How would you support my relative's end of life wishes, including access to health professionals and family staying overnight?
- 05Who would be in charge when the registered manager is away, and how would important changes in my relative's care be shared with staff and family?
This was a routine, unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 May 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
What inspectors found, January 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but unsafe medicines practice and unclear leadership.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 16 November 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, a visitor, a relative and staff. They also reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
People generally felt safe and spoke positively about the care. Staff were caring, knew people well and supported their choices, independence, activities, food and access to health services. There were enough staff on duty and risks such as falls were assessed and managed.
However, some staff were unclear about medicines procedures. This put people at risk of not receiving medicines safely or on time. Recruitment records were incomplete, and staff were not always clear who was in charge when senior staff were away. These issues led to an overall rating of Requires Improvement, with Safe and Well-led also rated Requires Improvement.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on duty, and call bells were answered promptly during the visit.
“Our observations confirmed that there were enough staff on duty to care for people safely.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's backgrounds, preferences and changing needs. Staff knew what mattered to people and supported their interests.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Training and health support
Staff received relevant training and supervision. People were supported to obtain medical, dental and other health care when needed.
“Staff received the training and support they needed to be effective in their roles.” from the report
Food and drink
People were offered choices and their nutritional and hydration needs were monitored where needed.
“People told us they enjoyed the food and had plenty to eat and drink.” from the report
Medicines were not consistently safe
seriousSome staff did not know about changed medicine times or when two staff were needed to administer and sign for medicines. There was also no risk assessment for one person who managed their own medicines.
“Inconsistencies in management of medicines put people at risk of not receiving their medicines safely.” from the report
Recruitment records incomplete
needs fixingSome staff files did not include a full employment history or explanations for gaps. This meant the provider could not be assured that all satisfactory employment evidence was present.
“Not all staff records contained a full employment history and where some staff had gaps in employment there was no explanation on record for these gaps.” from the report
No clear person in charge on some shifts
needs fixingStaff said there was nobody clearly in charge when the registered manager and deputy manager were not on duty. This made accountability and responsibility unclear.
“Leadership and accountability were unclear when senior staff were not on duty.” from the report
Communication was spread across several records
needs fixingStaff had to check a communication book, handover sheet, diary and care records. One staff member missed important information because they had not read the communication book.
“There was no system in place to ensure that all staff had read the information as required so the registered manager could not be assured that staff were properly informed.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure every staff member knows medicine times, including changes recorded in the MAR chart and handover book?
- 02How do you check that medicines needing two staff are administered and signed for correctly?
- 03What risk assessment is now in place for anyone who manages their own medicines?
- 04Who is in charge on shifts when the registered manager and deputy manager are not working?
- 05How do you now make sure staff read and understand important changes to care plans?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the previous inspection on 25 July 2014 had found no concerns. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 January 2017 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 Cornelius House
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 February 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 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.