CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cornerleigh
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Cornerleigh rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but gaps in risk management, safeguarding reporting and quality checks.
Two inspectors visited the home without notice on 12 April 2022. They spoke with four people and six staff. They also reviewed earlier information and feedback from seven relatives, and checked infection control arrangements.
People and relatives generally said they felt safe and were treated well. Staff were kind, had suitable training and there were enough staff. Medicines were mostly managed safely, and infection prevention arrangements were suitable.
Inspectors found that some risks had not been fully identified or explained for staff. One incident of verbal abuse had not been recognised as a safeguarding concern or reported as required. Quality checks had also failed to identify all these problems.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published in 2018, to Requires Improvement. The Safe and Well-led ratings were both Requires Improvement. The report says the home took prompt action during the inspection to address several issues.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff were patient, calm and attentive to people's emotions, communication needs and support needs.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff who used positive, respectful language which people understood and responded well to.” from the report
Staffing and training
There were enough staff for people's assessed needs, including one-to-one support. Staff had training and their medicines competence was checked.
“There were enough staff to support people and staff had received appropriate training to enable them to carry out their role safely.” from the report
Infection prevention
Inspectors were assured about cleaning, protective equipment, testing, visiting arrangements and the home's ability to manage infection outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff said the management team was supportive and approachable. The manager acted promptly when inspectors raised issues.
“The provider and registered manager welcomed suggestions on how they could develop the service and make improvements.” from the report
Incomplete risk guidance
seriousOne person's risk assessments did not contain enough detail for staff to understand and manage all the risks safely. The home updated the care plan and added staff support during the inspection.
“However, one person's risk assessments required further detail to ensure all risks were clearly identified and understood so staff had clear guidance about how to safely manage them.” from the report
Safeguarding reporting
seriousOne incident of verbal abuse was not recognised as a safeguarding concern and was not reported to the local authority or CQC as required.
“However, we found one incident of verbal abuse had not been reported to the local authority or CQC as required.” from the report
Medicine checks
needs fixingInspectors found problems with the availability of one prescribed medicine, risk assessments for blood-thinning medicines and the temperature of one medicine fridge. The manager took immediate action on these points.
“However, we identified some areas for improvement, which the registered manager took prompt action to address.” from the report
Quality monitoring
needs fixingThe provider had audits and checks, but they had not identified all the safety issues found during the inspection.
“Although the registered manager took prompt action to make improvements where needed, they and the provider had not identified these through their systems and processes.” from the report
Recording people's feedback
minorFeedback from people was gathered informally but was not recorded. Inspectors said this made it harder to identify themes or trends and act promptly.
“However, this was done informally and not recorded.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the risk assessments and care plans since the inspection, and how do you check that staff understand them?
- 02How do you now identify, record and report safeguarding concerns, including incidents of verbal abuse?
- 03What checks are now in place for repeat prescriptions, blood-thinning medicines and medicine fridge temperatures?
- 04How do you know your quality audits are finding problems before an inspection does?
- 05How do you record people's feedback and use it to identify themes or make changes?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the report does not give ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 June 2022 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, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control practice during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 16 December 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control because the home had a coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors found good practice. They were assured that the home managed visitors, admissions, testing, PPE, cleaning, social distancing and infection risks safely.
Relatives could not visit during the outbreak, but people were supported to keep in touch by phone and video calls. The inspection did not give an overall quality rating.
Infection control
The home had detailed risk assessments, cleaning schedules and infection control audits. Staff used PPE in line with guidance.
“There were robust infection control audits and cleaning schedules in place.” from the report
Keeping families connected
Although visits were stopped during the outbreak, people were supported to maintain contact with relatives by phone and video calls.
“People had been supported to maintain contact with their relatives through regular phone calls and video calls.” from the report
Safe admissions
New admissions were planned carefully. People had tested negative for COVID-19 and were supported to isolate for 14 days.
“Admissions to the home were carefully considered and planned to ensure people were admitted safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current arrangements for relatives to visit the home?
- 02How does the home now manage COVID-19 or other infection outbreaks?
- 03Are new residents still tested and supported to isolate when needed?
- 04How often are PPE use, cleaning and infection control checked?
- 05What is the home's current overall CQC rating from any wider inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak; it did not provide an overall rating or assess the other care areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 January 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 Cornerleigh
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- June 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 December 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.