CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cornfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, risk assessments were in place, medicines were handled safely, and infection control arrangements were satisfactory. Past staffing pressures and incomplete records for some as-needed medicines were noted.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this inspection. The report says people's health needs were monitored and they were supported to access healthcare when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this inspection. Inspectors described care as kind and compassionate, with people's privacy, dignity and choices respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this inspection. People were supported according to their individual needs and were encouraged to take part in activities, social events and holidays.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager was visible, approachable and provided stable leadership. The provider had appointed an operations manager and was strengthening quality monitoring and management support.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred support, but staffing arrangements and some monitoring systems were still being strengthened.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 April 2023. One inspector spoke with people, staff, managers, a relative, an advocate and visiting professionals. They also reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, safety and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found that people felt safe, received kind and respectful care, and were supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities.
There had been staffing pressures in the past. The provider had changed staffing arrangements and planned to use a dependency tool to check staffing levels and skills. A medicines recording issue was corrected during the inspection.
This inspection only gave ratings for Safe and Well-led. The report says the previous overall rating was Good, published on 22 March 2023, and the ratings for Safe and Well-led remained Good.
Kind and respectful care
People received compassionate support. Staff knew people well and respected their privacy, dignity and individual choices.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Their privacy and dignity was respected.” from the report
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Risks were assessed and safeguarding concerns were dealt with.
“People told us they felt safe. One said, "I am safe here, it's a safe place to be.” from the report
Meaningful lives
People were supported to have fulfilling lives, including social events, activities and holidays. Staff encouraged people to make their own choices.
“People were supported to be busy and to have fulfilling lives that included life activities and social events.” from the report
Previous staffing pressures
needs fixingStaffing arrangements in the past had not always ensured that people's support needs, including social activities, were met. The provider planned to use a dependency tool to review staffing levels and skills.
“The provider had recognised the staffing arrangements were not always suitable to provide the level of support needed including social activity.” from the report
As-needed medicines records
needs fixingRecords did not show the outcome of some as-needed medicines. The registered manager corrected this during the inspection by providing a suitable record.
“Records on the outcome of such medicines were not recorded. The registered manager immediately addressed this matter and provided a suitable record.” from the report
Monitoring systems developing
minorSystems for reviewing accidents and incidents, including themes and trends, were still being formalised. Wider quality monitoring arrangements were also being strengthened.
“Although there were quality review and monitoring systems in place these were being strengthened and developed by the operations manager.” from the report
- 01What are the current staffing levels during the day and at night, and how do you check that the staff mix meets people's needs?
- 02What dependency tool are you using to review staffing levels, and what action will you take if it shows more staff or different skills are needed?
- 03How do you record the outcome of as-needed medicines, particularly medicines used for anxiety?
- 04What progress has been made in reviewing accidents and incidents for themes and trends?
- 05How will the new operations manager and deputy manager roles improve oversight of the home?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other three key questions were not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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, April 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control in many areas but gaps in visitor checks and outbreak planning.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 4 March 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected the home.
Inspectors found the home was clean. There was enough protective equipment, staff had COVID-19 training, and regular testing was taking place. Visiting was allowed in line with government guidance, with checks, hand gel and masks.
There were two shortfalls. Staff were not always checking that visiting professionals and contractors had been vaccinated. The home also did not have an outbreak contingency plan at the time of the visit. The manager took action after inspectors raised these points.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating for the service, and it does not provide a full assessment of all five areas of care.
Clean environment
The home was clean and had a regular cleaning programme covering communal areas and high-touch surfaces.
“The home was clean, and staff completed a regular cleaning programme in communal areas that included high touch areas.” from the report
PPE and staff training
There was a good supply of protective equipment, and staff had received COVID-19 training and regular infection control updates.
“There was a good supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) and staff had received specific COVID-19 training.” from the report
Testing and hygiene
Regular testing was taking place, with hand sanitiser available and staff observed wearing masks.
“Regular testing for people and staff was taking place, in accordance with government guidelines.” from the report
Relatives could visit
Visiting was not restricted and was managed using government guidance and safety measures.
“People did not have a high number of visitors but visiting was not restricted and took account of government guidelines.” from the report
Visitor vaccination checks
seriousStaff were not following the visiting procedure and were not checking that professionals and contractors had been vaccinated, unless exempt or visiting in an emergency. The manager said this was addressed after the inspection.
“However, staff were not following this and were not ensuring professionals and contractors visiting the service had been vaccinated.” from the report
No outbreak contingency plan
needs fixingThe home had not prepared a plan for responding to an outbreak. An updated risk assessment and contingency plan were provided after inspectors raised this.
“The service had not developed a contingency plan to respond to an outbreak in the service.” from the report
- 01How do you now check the vaccination status or exemption of every visiting professional and contractor?
- 02Where is the current outbreak contingency plan, and when was it last reviewed?
- 03How do you check that staff follow the visiting procedure every time?
- 04What arrangements are still in place for testing, masks, hand hygiene and PPE?
- 05What were the service's previous ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, and when were they last assessed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it was inspected but not rated and did not assess the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 April 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.
Every inspection of Cornfield House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 April 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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East 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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.