CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cranwell Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable staffing, risk assessments, safe medicine procedures and good infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive, person-centred culture. Managers used audits, feedback and incident reviews to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Cranwell Court was rated Good; inspectors found people were safe, supported by kind staff and helped to live more independently.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 17 and 18 May 2021. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led because concerns had been raised about risk management and support during behaviour that may challenge others.
Inspectors spoke with people, a relative and staff. They observed staff supporting people and checked care records, medicine records, recruitment files, training records and management records.
The home had enough trained staff. Risks were assessed, behaviour support plans were followed and incidents were reviewed. Staff supported people safely with medicines, kept the home clean and followed infection control measures.
The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe and Well-led. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating.
Support with independence
People were helped to learn new skills, take part in activities and achieve personal goals. Staff focused on reducing restrictions and promoting independence.
“Staff and managers had a passion for promoting people's independence.” from the report
Safe staffing and risk support
There were enough suitably trained staff, with consistent staffing for people. Risk plans were updated and staff understood how to support people safely.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Incidents were investigated and followed up. The home used debriefs, safeguarding referrals where needed and staff reflection to improve future support.
“Whenever an incident happened this was investigated by the registered manager and actions were taken.” from the report
Clean and infection-aware home
Inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures were in place, including cleaning, personal protective equipment and arrangements for visits.
“Staff kept the service clean and followed extra cleaning measures to ensure good infection control during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Positive leadership
Managers understood their responsibilities, sought feedback and worked with health professionals to support people appropriately.
“The registered manager promoted a positive culture at the service and staff were supported to empower people to achieve their goals.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are each person's positive behaviour support plans kept up to date and explained to new staff?
- 02How often do incidents involving physical support happen now, and what changes have been made after reviewing them?
- 03How do you make sure there are enough suitably trained staff for each person's current needs?
- 04How are medicine competency checks and audits completed, including for as-needed medicines?
- 05How do people and relatives give feedback, and can you show examples of changes made in response?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 June 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, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and support for people's wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The inspection took place on 20 November 2020 and was announced. It was a thematic review focused on infection prevention and control in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found good practice. Staff had access to personal protective equipment and hand sanitiser, followed social distancing guidance, and used protective measures correctly. Garden visits were arranged by appointment with steps to reduce infection risks.
The home had COVID-19 risk assessments and procedures in place. Staff supported people's wellbeing and used strategies to help with anxiety about COVID-19.
The home was inspected but not rated. Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, but this was not a full inspection of all five CQC questions.
PPE and social distancing
Staff had designated areas for putting on and removing PPE. Inspectors saw staff maintaining social distance and following the protective measures in place.
“Staff were seen to be maintaining social distance and adhering to the PPE guidance and protective measures in place.” from the report
Safer visits
Garden visits were limited and arranged by appointment. Times were allocated to reduce the chance of infection spreading between visitors.
“Visits were limited and were by appointment only, with times allocated to avoid potential infection transmission with other visitors.” from the report
Risk assessments
The home had introduced COVID-19 procedures and guidance. Staff in high-risk groups had individual risk assessments.
“All COVID-19 related risks were assessed and staff in high risk groups, including those returning to work following shielding, had individual risk assessments in place.” from the report
Support for wellbeing
The home prioritised people's wellbeing and put strategies in place to help manage anxiety linked to COVID-19.
“People's wellbeing had been prioritised. Staff had put in place strategies for managing people's anxieties in relation to COVID-19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are PPE, hand hygiene and social distancing managed now?
- 02How are visits arranged, and what infection control measures are currently used?
- 03How are COVID-19 risks assessed for people living here and for staff in higher-risk groups?
- 04What support is available for people who feel anxious about infections or visiting restrictions?
- 05When was the home's infection prevention and control policy last updated?
This was an announced thematic review of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; only the Safe question was inspected and it was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 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 Cranwell Court
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
88 live-in carers within about an hour of Bedford
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 £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.