CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cranleigh Gardens
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, risk plans were in place, medicines were managed safely, and staffing levels were appropriate.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed with them, their relatives and health professionals. Staff had relevant training and people were supported with food, healthcare, skills and independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, compassionate and respectful. People were involved in decisions about their care and the running of the home.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, wishes, communication and goals. Staff supported relationships, education, volunteering, activities and progress towards more independent living.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found exceptional leadership, an open and inclusive culture, strong partnerships and comprehensive systems for checking and improving care.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Cranleigh Gardens was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with Outstanding leadership.
The inspection visit took place on 21 November 2022 and was announced with 24 hours' notice. One inspector spoke with people, staff and the manager, observed the home, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home supports up to five adults with mental health needs. At the inspection, three people lived there. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and respect, and involved in their care and plans for greater independence.
Inspectors found good practice in medicines, staffing, risk management, infection control, training, food, healthcare and personalised support. They rated the home Outstanding for being well-led because leaders created a strong, inclusive culture and worked effectively with other services.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found the service met the expected standards across all five areas. The previous overall rating was also Good, published on 15 September 2017, while the well-led rating improved from Good to Outstanding.
Personalised independence support
People were involved in their care plans and were supported to build skills and work towards living more independently.
“People were central to the assessment of their needs and risks.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found clear medicines records, safe storage and administration, and regular checks of medicines management.
“The administration of medicines was managed in a safe way.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them with compassion, dignity, privacy and respect.
“We observed staff demonstrated kind and compassionate attitudes towards people.” from the report
Strong leadership
Leaders created an inclusive culture and helped staff and people contribute ideas. The service also worked closely with health, social care, education and community organisations.
“The provider created the right culture where their staff could develop and provided the right training and support to make sure they could fulfil their roles appropriately.” from the report
Quality improvement
The home had several ways to gather feedback, review care and identify improvements.
“A quality improvement plan was in place and used to review and monitor all aspects of care in the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and support my relative's mental health needs, risks and personal goals?
- 02How would you help my relative build daily living skills and move towards more independent accommodation?
- 03What training and supervision do staff receive for the specific needs of people living in the home?
- 04How would you involve my relative and our family in care plan reviews and decisions about support?
- 05What education, volunteering, work and community activities could my relative take part in?
This was an announced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control measures; the report says the inspection was prompted by a review of information held about the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 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, September 2017
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found that medicines records were not always safe and rated Safe as Requires Improvement.
The announced inspection took place on 22 August 2017. The inspector spoke with all four people living in the home, a relative, a social worker, the manager and three staff members. They also observed care and checked care records, staff files and management records.
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff knew how to protect people from abuse and manage risks. However, some medicines administration records had gaps because staff had not signed after giving medicines. The daily stock audit had not found this error.
Inspectors found good care in the other areas. Staff were trained and supported, people were involved in their care plans, and staff treated people with kindness, privacy and respect. The home supported people to build skills for more independent living.
The overall rating was Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, while Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. At the previous inspection in July 2015, no rating had been given because only one person lived at the home.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as caring and supportive. Inspectors saw warm, friendly and respectful interactions, with attention to privacy and dignity.
“The staff here do care and they show they are caring in what they do.” from the report
Building independence
The home helped people develop practical skills and work towards more independent living, including shopping, cooking, laundry and community activities.
“People were encouraged and supported by staff to undertake various activities and tasks.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans included people's needs, choices, strengths and goals. People were involved in reviews and planning as their wellbeing improved.
“The care plans we saw identified each person's needs and their short and long term goals.” from the report
Supportive management
Staff felt supported and involved, while people and relatives were asked for their views. The home used meetings and reviews to monitor quality.
“Staff said the manager was "helpful and supportive" and they felt there was a good team spirit” from the report
Medicines records
seriousSome staff did not sign medicines records after giving medicines. The daily medicines stock audit did not identify the problem, although inspectors found that the medicines had been taken and were stored safely.
“We found there were some gaps in the records where staff had not signed when they administered medicines to people.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to the medicines process after inspectors found missing signatures?
- 02How often are medicines records and stock now checked, and what happens when an error is found?
- 03How are people supported to self-medicate safely as part of their rehabilitation programme?
- 04How will you measure progress towards each person's goals for more independent living?
- 05How do you make sure changes from healthcare appointments are added promptly to people's care plans?
This was an announced inspection covering all five key questions and providing an overall rating; the previous inspection in July 2015 did not give a rating because only one person lived at the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 September 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 Cranleigh Gardens
2 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- September 2017GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Insufficient evidence to rateSafe: Insufficient evidence to rateEffective: Insufficient evidence to rateCaring: Insufficient evidence to rateResponsive: Insufficient evidence to rateWell-led: Insufficient evidence to rate
- April 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 April 2015.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Sutton
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 £1,230 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.