CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cuffley Manor Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe and inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Risks were managed in practice, but some care plans did not give staff clear, up-to-date guidance.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and support. People received help with food, drink and healthcare, although some best-interest decisions were not recorded well.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind, respectful and sensitive care. People's privacy, dignity, choices and independence were promoted.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was generally shaped around people's needs and preferences. There were group and individual activities, and relatives' concerns were investigated and answered appropriately.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The new manager had improved staff morale and encouraged feedback. Quality checks were in place, but people's care records were not consistently complete or personalised.
What inspectors found, January 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but care records needed improvement.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 12 October 2017. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff, managers and a health professional. They observed care and reviewed care, medicine, training and management records.
The home was supporting 24 people at the time. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements and staff who understood people's needs. People were treated with kindness and respect, had activities to choose from and could raise concerns.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors did identify that some care records lacked important detail, including people's risks, preferences and some best-interest decisions. The management team knew about these issues and was working to improve them.
Enough staff
Inspectors found sufficient staff to support people promptly. Recruitment checks were also described as robust.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to support people in a timely manner” from the report
Activities and social life
People could take part in group and individual activities and continue hobbies and interests. Inspectors saw people enjoying time with staff and each other.
“People were supported to engage in a range of group and individual activities.” from the report
Quality checks
The management team had systems to monitor care and identify areas needing improvement. Staff, people and relatives could give their views.
“Robust arrangements were in place to monitor, identify and manage the quality of the service people received.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not clearly explain how to manage people's risks. Other records did not fully describe people's preferences, such as preferred bedtimes or staff gender.
“People's risks to their wellbeing and safety were managed and responded to, however care plans lacked some detail.” from the report
Best-interest decisions not fully recorded
needs fixingMental capacity assessments had been carried out where needed, but decisions made in people's best interests were not consistently documented.
“these best interest decisions were not well documented.” from the report
Some medicine guidance was general
needs fixingGuidance for medicines given when needed did not always describe each person's symptoms. Staff knew people's needs, but the written guidance did not always reflect this.
“we found these were generalised and not always descriptive of people`s individual symptoms.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans been rewritten so they clearly describe each person's risks and how staff should manage them?
- 02How are each person's preferences, including routines and preferred staff gender, recorded and kept up to date?
- 03How do you record mental capacity assessments and decisions made in a person's best interests?
- 04How do you make sure guidance for medicines given when needed describes each person's individual symptoms?
- 05What changes were made after the new manager and pharmacy arrangements were introduced?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and providing ratings for each one. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 January 2018 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 Cuffley Manor Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- January 2018Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 July 2016.
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 Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.