CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cromarty House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found appropriate staffing, regularly reviewed risk assessments, safe medicines systems and suitable infection control. Staff knew how to report concerns and learn from incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable leadership, good communication with families and professionals, regular use of feedback and audits, and a staff team that knew people well.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Cromarty House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care and strong management, with a recommendation about recording capacity assessments.
The home provides personal care for up to eight people with a learning disability or autistic people. One inspector visited on 28 January 2023. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and professionals, and reviewed care records, medicines records and management checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors found that people were safe, supported by staff who knew them well, and helped to make choices and take part in meaningful activities. The home was clean, well maintained and worked well with health and social care professionals.
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only. Both were rated Good. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were not checked during this visit and were carried over from the previous inspection. The overall rating remained Good.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, take part in meaningful activities and work towards their goals. Staff used the least restrictive approach and supported people to make decisions.
“The care model focused on people's strengths and promoted what they could do.” from the report
Consistent staff
Staff turnover was very low. Inspectors said staffing levels and staff skills reflected people's needs, and staff knew people's wishes and goals.
“Staff turnover was very low. This helped people build strong relationships with the staff who supported them.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored and given safely. Staff supported people to take medicines as independently as possible and had been checked as competent.
“Medicines were managed and stored safely and given to people as prescribed.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with health and social care organisations so people could access specialist support and services in the community.
“The service worked well in partnership with health and social care organisations.” from the report
Open management
The manager was visible and approachable. Inspectors found that people's views and feedback from relatives and professionals were used to improve the service.
“The registered manager was visible in the service, approachable and valued what people, staff, family, advocates and other professionals had to say.” from the report
Capacity records
needs fixingInspectors found the home was working within the Mental Capacity Act, but recommended improving how assessments of people's capacity were recorded.
“We made a recommendation about recording assessments of people's capacity.” from the report
- 01How do you record assessments of my relative's capacity for different decisions?
- 02How will you support my relative to make their own choices and stay as independent as possible?
- 03What individual plan is in place if my relative becomes upset, anxious or distressed?
- 04How will my relative be supported to take medicines independently, where this is suitable?
- 05How will you involve me and other important people in planning and reviewing my relative's care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 February 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, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found well-prepared infection control arrangements during a targeted visit.
This was an announced inspection on 8 April 2021. It was targeted at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than a full review of the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using PPE safely, managing visitors, following testing and isolation procedures, and keeping the premises clean. Staff had infection control training and checks were carried out.
The home had plans for a possible outbreak and supported people to keep in touch with family and friends. The inspection did not give a quality rating, so it does not show how the home performs in areas such as caring, responsiveness or leadership.
Infection control
The home had PPE supplies, clear instructions and staff competency checks. Staff changed into uniforms in a separate building before entering areas where people lived.
“Staff came to work wearing their own clothes then changed into their uniforms in a designated doffing and donning room.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic. High-contact areas were cleaned regularly, including during the night.
“All high contact areas were cleaned regularly throughout the day and night staff also had a cleaning routine.” from the report
Visitor arrangements
The home had a planned visiting process, including appointments, screening and PPE. It also had arrangements for compassionate visits.
“Visitors were screened for Covid-19 prior to entering the service. Visitors were required to wear PPE at all times.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to stay in contact with friends and family by telephone and digital technology.
“People were supported to speak with their friends and family using IT and the telephone as necessary.” from the report
Staffing support
The home did not use agency staff. Staff supported each other when cover was needed for leave or absences.
“Agency staff were not used, and staff covered and supported each other when shifts required filling to cover leave or other absences.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection control arrangements are currently in place for visitors?
- 02How often are staff and residents tested, and what happens if someone has COVID-19 symptoms?
- 03How are high-contact areas cleaned, and are night staff still included in the cleaning routine?
- 04What is the current plan for managing a COVID-19 outbreak?
- 05What information can you provide about the areas not covered by this targeted inspection, such as caring, responsiveness and leadership?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not provide an overall quality rating or assess all five care questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 April 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 Cromarty House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 June 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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.