CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cranmer House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, medicines were given safely, and the home and equipment were clean. There were some staff vacancies, but inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and support. People received choices about food and drink, prompt healthcare support and care that took account of their physical, mental and social needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy, dignity, independence and personal choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was tailored to people's needs, preferences and communication needs. People were supported with activities, relationships and interests, and complaints were investigated.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable leadership, an open culture and effective checks on care quality. Feedback from people, relatives and staff was used to make improvements.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Cranmer House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with good leadership.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 October 2019. The inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked care, medicine and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives said they were happy with the care. Inspectors found that staff were kind, trained and responsive to people's needs.
People's risks, medicines and healthcare needs were managed well. Care was personalised, people's choices were respected, and activities supported their wellbeing. The home had good systems for checking quality and dealing with concerns.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives consistently said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors also observed calm, compassionate interactions.
“Without exception, all the people and relatives we spoke with told us staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised choices
People were treated as individuals. Their choices about care, clothing, food, privacy and daily activities were respected.
“People were treated as individuals and their decisions were respected.” from the report
Safety and medicines
Risks were assessed and reduced, medicines were stored and given safely, and staff responded quickly when people needed help.
“Risks to people's individual safety had been assessed and managed well.” from the report
Activities and wellbeing
Staff supported hobbies, trips and personal interests. They used a wellness wheel to understand which activities helped each person.
“Staff had developed a 'wellness wheel' with people.” from the report
Good leadership
The management team was described as approachable and knowledgeable. Regular checks, feedback and incident reviews were used to improve care.
“The registered manager had instilled an open, inclusive and person-centred culture within the home.” from the report
Staff vacancies
minorThere were some unfilled posts. The report says these were covered by existing or agency staff, and inspectors found enough staff during the visit.
“There were some vacancies at the service which the registered manager was actively trying to fill.” from the report
- 01How many staff vacancies are there now, and how often are agency staff used?
- 02Has the refurbishment mentioned in the report been completed, and which rooms are currently available?
- 03How will you record and support my relative's personal choices, communication needs and preferred daily activities?
- 04How are medicines checked today, and how would you tell us if there was a medicine error?
- 05How can relatives give feedback or raise a concern, and how will we be told what action was taken?
This was an unannounced, planned inspection covering all five CQC areas, including the premises and care provided; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection published in March 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 2019 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 2017
Cranmer House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with some training and referral records needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 February 2017. The inspectors spoke with people using the service, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They checked care records, medicines records, staff information and records about how the home was run.
The home provides short-term accommodation and care for up to 20 people, including respite and re-ablement care. Fourteen people were staying for respite care during the inspection. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable risk assessments and good access to food and healthcare.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff supported people's choices, independence, activities and family visits. The home had good leadership and systems to check and improve the service. All five areas were rated Good, and the home remained Good since the previous inspection.
Safe medicines support
Staff who gave medicines were trained, records were completed and medicines checked were counted correctly. Information about allergies and people's preferences was also recorded.
“People were given their medicines in a safe manner using a comprehensive system administered by staff that were trained to do so.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff being thoughtful and patient. People and relatives said staff respected dignity, involved them in decisions and encouraged independence.
“We saw that staff were thoughtful and kind in their approach to people.” from the report
Choice and activities
People could choose when to eat, bathe, shower or go to bed. Activities included walks, reading, baking, crafts, games and entertainment.
“Staff were responsive to people's individual needs, preferences and requests.” from the report
Good teamwork
Staff said they worked well together and could approach managers for support. Managers were visible and acted on issues raised during the inspection.
“There was good leadership in place and staff felt they worked well as a team and felt supported.” from the report
Some training was out of date
minorInspectors found that some staff training had recently expired. Refresher training dates had been booked, but families may wish to ask whether this has now been completed.
“We saw that some training was recently expired, however dates had been booked for on-going refresher training.” from the report
Follow-up after a referral
minorOne person had not received information after a physiotherapy referral. The deputy manager followed this up and arranged a visit immediately.
“Another person said they had not received any information following a referral to a physiotherapist.” from the report
- 01Have all staff completed the refresher training that had recently expired?
- 02How will you record and communicate the progress of physiotherapy or other healthcare referrals?
- 03How will you assess staffing levels if my relative's needs change during their short stay?
- 04How will you support my relative's medicines, mobility needs and any special diet?
- 05What activities and family visiting arrangements will be available during the stay?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, and all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 March 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 Cranmer House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.