CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 1 & 2 Clementi Court Houses
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and managed risks in the home. Inspectors found some unsafe storage, medicine recording and infection-control issues, but these were addressed promptly.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, and staff had relevant training. The home worked with health professionals and supported nutrition, healthcare and lawful decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was managed with a person-centred culture. Relatives and staff said leadership and staffing support had improved, and managers used checks and action plans to improve care.
What inspectors found, December 2022
HF Trust - 1 & 2 Clementi Court Houses was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but noted staffing history and some storage and infection-control issues.
Inspectors visited on 20 and 21 October 2022. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They observed care, spoke with relatives and staff, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment records, training, incidents, premises and quality checks.
The home supported seven people and could support up to eight. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported to make choices. Staff understood people's needs, worked with health professionals and supported people with medicines, food, activities and healthcare.
The inspection was prompted partly by concerns about staffing levels and staff turnover. Inspectors found no evidence that these concerns had put people at risk of harm. Staffing and opportunities to go out were improving after recruitment of new staff.
The overall rating remained Good, as it was at the previous inspection. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Good. Caring and Responsive were not inspected in this visit, so their previous ratings were not reassessed in this report.
Kind and person-centred care
People received compassionate support from staff who understood their individual needs, choices and rights.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff understood and responded to people's individual needs.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff supported people to make decisions, promoted their strengths and used the least restrictive approach possible.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests” from the report
Skilled support
Staff had training covering learning disability and autism support, health needs, communication, human rights and positive behaviour support.
“People were supported by staff who had received relevant and good quality training in evidence-based practice.” from the report
Health and professional support
The home worked with GPs, nurses, speech and language therapists and psychiatrists. People had health plans and passports to help professionals understand their needs.
“Staff routinely worked with other health and social care professionals so people's health needs would be promoted.” from the report
Learning and improvement
Managers reviewed incidents and care checks, shared learning with staff and created action plans where improvements were needed.
“The registered Manager and provider set a culture that valued reflection, learning and improvement.” from the report
Some items were not stored safely
needs fixingToiletries and thickeners that could be hazardous if swallowed were not always stored correctly. The manager acted without delay.
“some items which may be hazardous to people if consumed, such as toiletries and thickeners, were not always stored correctly.” from the report
Medicine records needed improvement
needs fixingOpening and expiry dates were missing from some prescribed creams and toothpaste. This could mean items were used after they were no longer effective, and immediate action was taken.
“We found some instances where opening and expiry dates had not been recorded on people's prescribed creams or toothpaste.” from the report
Infection-control details
minorSome surfaces below a sink and along skirting boards were porous, and one bin was too high for foot operation. The manager took steps to correct this.
“We saw some areas below a sink and skirting boards had porous surfaces.” from the report
Previous staffing difficulties
needs fixingRelatives and staff reported periods when staffing was low, which reduced opportunities for people to do activities outside the home. Recruitment was improving this at the time of inspection.
“There had been times when staffing levels had been low and this had impacted on people's opportunities to do things they enjoyed outside of the home.” from the report
- 01What are the current staffing levels, and has staff turnover improved since the inspection?
- 02How often can residents now go out, and is there usually a driver or enough staff to support these activities?
- 03How do you check that creams and toothpaste have their opening and expiry dates recorded?
- 04How are toiletries, thickeners and other items that could be harmful if swallowed stored?
- 05What changes were made to reduce choking risks during meals, and how do you check that staff follow them?
This was a focused inspection covering Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 December 2022 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 Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some staffing, supervision and record-keeping issues to monitor.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out over visits on 26 and 28 March 2019, followed by telephone conversations with staff during the week beginning 15 April. The inspector spoke with relatives, staff and managers, and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment and training records, policies and quality checks.
The home supported six people in two accessible bungalows and was registered for up to eight people. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and dignity, involved in decisions as far as possible, and supported to attend appointments, follow interests and take part in community activities.
Inspectors found good systems for safeguarding, risk assessments, medicines, infection control and working with health professionals. Care plans were detailed and updated, and relatives were positive about the care, communication and end of life support.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors noted recent staffing difficulties, some missed supervision timeframes and gaps in recording whether decisions were the least restrictive option.
Kind and personal care
Inspectors saw staff providing calm, caring and highly individual support. Relatives also described care as respectful and dignified.
“We observed staff to have a kind, calm and caring manner and witnessed highly individual care.” from the report
Good risk and medicines systems
The home assessed risks, followed detailed guidance for swallowing and aspiration concerns, and checked medicines daily.
“Medicines counts were carried out daily. We checked and found these to be correct.” from the report
Individual care and activities
Care plans included people's preferences and changing needs. Staff supported people to attend activities, appointments and community events.
“People's interests and social needs were encouraged. A range of activities were supported and the service had access to its own minibus for transport.” from the report
Personal end of life support
Relatives described end of life care as highly personal, with close working with other agencies.
“The end of life care was so good the hospice was impressed.” from the report
Recent staffing difficulties
needs fixingStaffing had been difficult in the months before the inspection because staff had left. Recruitment and improved pay scales were being used to address this, and agency use was limited.
“Staff told us recent months had been difficult with staff leaving, but new staff had been recruited and new pay scales were due to be introduced in the spring.” from the report
Missed supervision timeframes
needs fixingSome staff had not received supervision within the provider's expected timescale. The report says action was being taken after the registered manager's absence.
“We noted some staff had not always had supervisions within the timescale set by the provider.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingBest-interest decisions were made, but reviews did not always show whether the decision was the least restrictive option. The manager said the process would be reviewed.
“Reviews did not always detail whether the decisions reached constituted the least restrictive option.” from the report
Reviewing incident patterns
minorIncidents were recorded and reviewed individually, but inspectors were told there was no overarching review to identify trends.
“The senior support worker told us they were not aware of any overarching review of incidents to identify trends, but felt these would be easily evident in such a small service.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff are now in post, and has the staffing problem described in the report been resolved?
- 02How often does each member of staff receive supervision now, and how are missed sessions followed up?
- 03How do you record best-interest decisions and show that any restrictions are the least restrictive option?
- 04How are accidents and incidents reviewed for patterns or trends?
- 05How will you support the person's swallowing, dietary and other complex health needs in line with professional advice?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with visits on 26 and 28 March 2019, record checks and follow-up telephone conversations with staff during the week commencing 15 April. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 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 1 & 2 Clementi Court Houses
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 January 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Worcestershire
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. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.