CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Craignair Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People received medicines as prescribed, and staff administering them were trained and assessed as competent. Risks, accidents, infection control, staffing and recruitment were also managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and choices. Staff supported nutrition, hydration, healthcare access and lawful decision-making, and people had choices about food and where and when to eat.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw warm and positive interactions. People and relatives said staff were kind, respectful and welcoming, and staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and involvement in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans had been reviewed and gave staff person-centred information. Staff supported communication, healthcare appointments, relationships and end-of-life care, although a new activities co-ordinator was still being recruited.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and provider had effective audits, risk systems and action plans. They used feedback and worked with external professionals to improve the quality and safety of care.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Craignair Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care after significant improvements since the previous inspection.
Inspectors made an unannounced comprehensive visit on 10 February 2023. One inspector looked around the home, observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care plans, medicines, training and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people received their medicines safely, risks were managed, staff were trained, and care was tailored to people's needs.
The previous inspection found that safety and care quality were compromised. The home had then been rated Requires Improvement and was in breach of Regulation 12. Inspectors found that the home had acted on its improvement plan and was no longer in breach.
The home had recently lost its activities co-ordinator and was recruiting a replacement. Staff were still involving people in activities, but the report says the recruitment was in progress at the time of inspection.
Improved safety
The home had addressed the previous medicines and safe-care concerns. Inspectors found that medicines matched the records and risks were being identified and reduced.
“Enough improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 12.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and welcoming. Inspectors also observed positive and warm interactions.
“We observed positive and warm interactions between people and staff throughout the day of our inspection.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans had been updated and included people's choices and needs. Staff knew people well and adapted support to reduce distress.
“Since the last inspection all care plans had been reviewed and updated.” from the report
Effective leadership
The home used audits, feedback and incident reviews to identify improvements. The manager and provider had worked on the previous action plan.
“Audit processes were in place and effective at identifying any areas for improvement.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
The home had refurbished bedrooms and provided different lounge spaces, a garden and simpler flooring to help people living with dementia move around more easily.
“The décor was homely, calming and inviting.” from the report
Activities co-ordinator vacancy
minorThe activities co-ordinator had recently left and the home was recruiting a full-time replacement. Staff continued to involve people in activities, but families may want to check how regular and personalised activities are being maintained.
“The service was in the process of recruiting a full-time activity co-ordinator, as the activity co-ordinator had recently left the service.” from the report
- 01How are medicines checked now, and how will you show that the improvements identified in this report are being maintained?
- 02When do you expect to appoint the full-time activities co-ordinator?
- 03What group and one-to-one activities are available while the activities co-ordinator post is vacant?
- 04How often are care plans reviewed, and how are changes in a person's needs or preferences recorded?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in decisions about care, complaints and service improvements?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the inspection also checked progress against the previous action plan. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 March 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, January 2020
Craignair Care Home is rated Requires Improvement; care was kind, but medicines, records and management systems were not consistently safe or reliable.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 13 November 2019. They spoke with relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines records, safety checks and quality records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good. Inspectors found kind and respectful staff, enough staff on duty, suitable food and improving activities.
There were important shortfalls. Medicines were not always managed safely. Some risk assessments, care plans and mental capacity records lacked important information. The home had experienced management instability, but a new management team had begun making improvements.
The provider must send CQC an action plan. CQC said it would work with the provider and local authority to monitor progress and return for another inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors and relatives described staff as caring, patient and respectful. Staff protected privacy and dignity and encouraged people to do what they could for themselves.
“People were treated with respect, compassion and kindness, by staff who promoted equality and valued diversity.” from the report
Enough staff
Relatives and staff said staffing levels were sufficient. Inspectors saw staff available and responding promptly to people.
“We observed staff were readily available and responded to people promptly during the inspection.” from the report
Improving activities
The home provided games, sing-alongs, entertainers and trips out. Relatives said activities had improved and had a positive effect on people.
“People were provided with and supported to participate in activities to help maintain their social health.” from the report
Food and healthcare support
Staff assessed nutritional needs, followed professional advice and worked with healthcare professionals. Meals were adapted to meet people's needs and preferences.
“Staff supported people to ensure they received a balanced diet and sufficient fluids to maintain their health.” from the report
Medicines records and guidance
seriousMedicines stocks for two people did not match the administration records. Staff also lacked enough information about some when-required and variable-dose medicines. This was a breach of Regulation 12.
“Medicines were not always managed safely and properly.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
needs fixingSome risks had not been assessed, including risks linked to behaviour that may challenge. The manager made immediate improvements after inspectors raised this.
“Risks to people's safety were not managed consistently well.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingStaff knew people's needs and preferences, but this was not always written down clearly enough to guide care. The home was moving to a new care planning system.
“However, we found some people's care plans lacked important information to guide staff in how best to support them.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingStaff did not consistently record capacity assessments and best-interest decisions. Inspectors recommended that the home improve its systems for consent, the Mental Capacity Act and related records.
“However, staff had not consistently assessed people's capacity to consent to and make decisions about their care.” from the report
Quality checks and training
needs fixingThe manager had introduced audits and a training plan, but quality checks had not identified every problem. There were also gaps in staff training, including end-of-life care.
“However, there were other shortfalls in practice the registered manager had not identified, such as inconsistencies in information around risk management.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure medicine stocks match the records for every person?
- 02How do you now give staff clear instructions for when-required and variable-dose medicines?
- 03Have all residents had up-to-date risk assessments and detailed care plans, including guidance about behaviour that may challenge?
- 04How are mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions recorded and checked?
- 05Which staff training gaps have been completed since the inspection, including end-of-life care training?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the care provided and the care home premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 January 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.
Every inspection of Craignair Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2020Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 November 2018.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Sefton
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 £1,270 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.