CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Cranhill Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Targeted inspection, not rated; inspectors found improved infection control but an outstanding plan to box in exposed pipes.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 26 April 2021. It checked whether the provider had fixed an earlier legal breach about infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found enough improvement for the previous breach to be resolved. Flooring, sluice surfaces and cleaning arrangements had improved. Staff were observed wearing personal protective equipment correctly.
The service was inspected but not rated. The inspection did not assess all five areas of care. These will be assessed at the next comprehensive inspection.
Infection controls improved
Inspectors found that the provider had made enough improvement to resolve the earlier infection-control breach.
“At this inspection, we found enough improvement had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 12” from the report
Better cleaning arrangements
Cleaning staff worked at weekends, and a schedule was introduced so completed cleaning tasks could be recorded and checked.
“Dedicated cleaning staff now worked Saturday and Sunday each week.” from the report
Safer premises
Problem flooring and poorly maintained sluice surfaces had been replaced, making them easier to clean.
“At this inspection, we found improvements had been made to the sluice, including replacing poorly maintained cupboards and work surfaces with new stainless-steel versions.” from the report
PPE used correctly
Changes were made to improve access to PPE and staff received additional training. All staff observed during the inspection wore it correctly.
“During this inspection, we observed all staff wearing their PPE correctly.” from the report
Exposed pipes
needs fixingInspectors said exposed pipes could make cleaning less effective. A plan was in place to box them in, but the work was not yet complete.
“The registered manager had identified that exposed pipes in the service posed a risk of infection as cleaning may not always be effective.” from the report
- 01When will all exposed pipes be boxed in, and has that work now been completed?
- 02How often are cleaning records checked, and what happens if a task has not been completed?
- 03How is PPE training kept up to date for all staff, including new starters?
- 04What infection-control arrangements are currently used for visitors and people moving into the home?
- 05When will the next comprehensive inspection assess the other areas of care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control to check an earlier Regulation 12 breach; all other key questions will be assessed at the next comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 May 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.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found infection-control shortfalls, including poor flooring, incomplete cleaning records and incorrect mask use.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 18 February 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic. The home was providing personal and nursing care for 23 people.
Inspectors found that some areas could not be cleaned effectively because flooring was worn or in poor condition. Weekend cleaning was not routinely provided by domestic staff, and cleaning records did not show enough detail. Two staff members were also seen wearing masks incorrectly.
There were also positive arrangements. The home had enough personal protective equipment, COVID-19 testing for staff and residents, procedures for ventilation and safe admissions, and ways to help people keep in touch with relatives.
The inspection found one breach of Regulation 12. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall Good, Requires Improvement or Inadequate rating.
Protective equipment
Staff had access to enough suitable protective equipment and had been trained to use it. The manager had also created a COVID-19 quiz for staff.
“Staff had access to enough suitable PPE and had received training in how to put it on and take it off.” from the report
Testing and admissions
The home had procedures for testing staff and residents and for admitting new people safely. New admissions were required to have a negative test and isolate for 14 days.
“No one would be admitted without a negative test first and they would isolate for 14 days.” from the report
Contact with relatives
Although visits had paused during lockdown, the home supported people to keep in touch with relatives by video call and had planned a separate visiting room.
“Staff also supported people to keep in touch with their relatives via video calling.” from the report
No outbreak at inspection
At the time of the inspection, nobody was testing positive for COVID-19 and the home had not had an outbreak.
“At the time of the inspection, no one was testing positive for COVID-19 and there had not been an outbreak in the home.” from the report
Areas difficult to clean
seriousPoor flooring in three communal toilets, the laundry and the sluice room meant effective cleaning could not be completed. The sluice room also needed refurbishment.
“This meant effective cleaning of these areas could not be completed.” from the report
Weekend cleaning
needs fixingNo domestic staff were allocated at weekends, so care staff carried out cleaning on an ad hoc basis. Cleaning records did not provide enough evidence that thorough cleaning had taken place.
“Although the home looked clean, cleaning schedules and records of cleaning required more detail to evidence thorough cleaning was conducted to reduce the risks of infection.” from the report
Incorrect mask use
seriousInspectors saw two staff members wearing masks incorrectly in the staff room. Three staff were present there even though the manager said there should only be two because of social distancing.
“We observed two staff members not wearing their masks appropriately whilst in the staff room.” from the report
Out-of-date infection policy
seriousThe infection-control policy had not been updated recently and did not match the relevant code of practice. This was part of the breach of Regulation 12.
“There was an infection control policy in place, this had not been recently updated and was not aligned with the Department of Health's 'Prevention and control of infection in care homes' Code of Practice.” from the report
- 01Have the poor floors in the communal toilets, laundry and sluice room been repaired or replaced?
- 02How is cleaning covered at weekends now, and how do you check and record that it has been completed thoroughly?
- 03What action have you taken to make sure all staff wear masks correctly and follow social-distancing rules?
- 04Has the infection-control policy been updated to match the current code of practice?
- 05How are visitors' health information and COVID-19 symptoms recorded before visits?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 March 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 Cranhill Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 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
25 live-in carers within about an hour of Bath and North East Somerset
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 £1,030 to £1,320 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She enabled mum to lead a high quality life in her own home until the very end and Lena and her family became close personal friends to me and my family.”
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.