CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cravenside Home for Older People
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable risk assessments and good infection prevention arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had clear management systems, regular audits and action plans. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management and leadership.
What inspectors found, October 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and the home was well managed, with some records and recruitment checks needing attention.
This was an announced, focused inspection on 22 September 2020. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff, relatives and the manager. They also toured the home and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable infection control and a clean environment. People said they felt comfortable and safe, and staff understood how to report abuse and incidents.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement. Earlier breaches about cleanliness and quality checks had been addressed. Inspectors still found a few minor gaps, including missing employment dates in two recruitment files and some missing protocols in current medicines records.
The other three questions were not inspected during this visit. Their previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. The report does not give those ratings in the text provided.
Clean and safer environment
The communal areas had been refurbished and redecorated. Inspectors found the home clean and were assured that infection prevention arrangements were suitable.
“Since the last inspection, the communal areas of the home had been refurbished and redecorated.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors observed enough staff on duty and found that staffing levels were reviewed against people's needs.
“We observed there were enough staff on duty during the inspection.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored and managed safely. Staff were trained, and records for receiving, giving and disposing of medicines were appropriate.
“Medicines were stored and managed safely. Staff were suitably trained to administer medicines and checks on their practice had been carried out.” from the report
Improved management checks
The home had introduced audits, action plans and regular senior oversight. This addressed the previous breach about quality assurance.
“The management team carried out a number of audits and checks covering all aspects of the service.” from the report
People's views heard
People were involved in decisions about their care and could share their views through meetings and surveys. The home used a 'You said, we did' approach.
“People were also given the opportunity to attend residents' meetings. The minutes were displayed around the home and written in the "You said, we did" format.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingTwo staff files did not initially include dates for previous employment. The manager obtained the information after the inspection and said recruitment procedures would be strengthened.
“whilst they had provided a list of their previous work positions, they had not included the dates of employment.” from the report
Some medicines protocols missing
needs fixingProtocols for medicines prescribed 'as necessary' had been developed, but not all were in people's current files. The manager addressed this after the inspection.
“not all the protocols were available in people's current files.” from the report
One risk assessment updated after inspection
needs fixingOne person's risk assessment was updated after the inspection so it fully reflected their current level of risk.
“We noted one person's risk assessment was reviewed following the inspection to fully reflect their current level of risk.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that recruitment files include full employment dates before staff start work?
- 02How do you make sure every 'as necessary' medicines protocol is kept in the person's current care records?
- 03How are people's risk assessments reviewed when their needs or risks change?
- 04What checks have been made since this inspection to confirm that the improvements in cleanliness and quality monitoring have continued?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected during this visit?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings carried over from previous comprehensive inspections. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 October 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.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but concerns about cleanliness, safety checks, records and management.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 29 April 2019. They observed care, spoke with relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment, training and quality monitoring records.
The home was rated Good for effective care and caring. Staff were trained, treated people with dignity, supported food and drink needs, and followed consent requirements. People and relatives generally said they felt safe and well cared for.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for safe, responsive and well-led care. Inspectors found dirty areas, unsecured hazardous products and doors, incomplete records, care plans that lacked detail, and quality checks that had not identified important problems.
This was the second consecutive Requires Improvement rating. The provider was required to send an action plan, and the CQC said it would continue monitoring the home and might inspect sooner if concerns arose.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed staff treating people respectfully and communicating with care and patience.
“Our observations showed staff communicated in a caring and compassionate way.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received training, induction, supervision and appraisals relevant to their roles.
“Staff completed regular training in areas relevant to their roles, to ensure they could support people effectively.” from the report
Food and drink support
People were supported to eat and drink, including people at risk of poor nutrition. Menus were adapted to make them easier to read.
“People received the support they needed to eat and drink and maintain a healthy and balanced diet.” from the report
Choice and consent
People were offered choices and supported to have as much control as possible over their care.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.” from the report
Cleanliness
seriousSome kitchens and bathrooms needed thorough cleaning. Inspectors also found stained carpets, smells, dirty clothes in communal bathrooms and some rooms needing redecoration.
“The provider failed to ensure the cleanliness of the premises.” from the report
Unsecured hazards
seriousCleaning products and other potentially hazardous products were left in unlocked cupboards. Some coded doors and the front door were also found unsecured.
“During the inspection we found cleaning products and other potentially hazardous products left in unlocked cupboards.” from the report
Care records lacked detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not describe people's preferences fully. Reviews, risk assessments and healthcare records were not always complete or updated after accidents.
“Some care plans we looked at lacked detail regarding personal preferences and information about each individual.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousThe home's checks had not identified several problems. Accidents, complaints, records and refurbishment risks were not consistently reviewed or followed up.
“Systems were either not in place or fully embedded to demonstrate that safety and quality was effectively managed.” from the report
Medicine storage
needs fixingMedicine availability and stock control had improved, but some storage arrangements lacked risk assessments and thickener was left unsecured in communal areas.
“We recommend the provider seeks advice from a reputable source and update its medication storage practices accordingly.” from the report
- 01What has been done since the inspection to clean the home thoroughly and replace stained carpets?
- 02How are cleaning products, medicines and other hazardous items now stored and checked?
- 03How do you make sure care plans, risk assessments and healthcare records are updated after accidents or changes in need?
- 04How are nurse call pagers checked to ensure they are audible and staff respond promptly?
- 05What changes have been made to quality checks, complaints records and accident reviews since the CQC action plan?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 June 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.
Every inspection of Cravenside Home for Older People
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Cravenside Home for Older People →
- June 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Cravenside Home for Older People →
- May 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2014Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 February 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.