CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Callywhite Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but concerns about decision-making, nutrition support and management systems.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 28 November 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines practice, kind staff, activities and support for relationships.
Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Some people could not freely access their bedrooms, best-interest decisions were not consistently recorded, and some people living with dementia were not supported to choose suitable food. Records, notifications and quality checks also needed improvement.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection, published on 28 June 2017, to Requires Improvement. CQC said it would continue to monitor the home and re-inspect under its programme.
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. Recruitment checks included references and background checks.
“There were enough staff available to support people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed kindness, listening and respect for privacy and dignity.
“People were treated in a kind and caring manner.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
People received medicines as prescribed. Staff understood the processes for storing, giving and disposing of medicines.
“People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People were supported to keep important relationships and join activities inside and outside the home.
“There were social activities for people to participate in.” from the report
Locked bedroom doors
seriousSome ground-floor bedrooms were locked during the day. Inspectors found no evidence that this restriction had been discussed with people or formally considered in their best interests.
“There was no evidence that this arrangement had been discussed with people or recognition that this was a deprivation of their liberty.” from the report
Food choices and weight loss
needs fixingSome people living with dementia were not always offered food suited to their preferences. Action was not always taken quickly when people were losing weight.
“We saw that people who were living with dementia, were not always supported to choose food that met their preferences.” from the report
Reporting and records
seriousStaff did not always recognise that minor physical conflict needed to be reported. Some medicines and self-administration records also needed review or stronger controls.
“This meant that recognition of abuse and reporting systems within the home required improvement.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingThe audit programme had been extended, but records did not always show whether required actions had been completed.
“When improvements were required, it was not recorded on the audit form that the required action had been completed.” from the report
- 01How are bedroom doors managed now, and are any restrictions recorded with best-interest decisions and the required legal authorisation?
- 02How do you identify weight loss quickly and make sure people living with dementia receive food they prefer and can eat?
- 03What has changed in the process for reporting physical incidents and submitting notifications to CQC?
- 04Have the annual reviews for covert medicines and the checks on people managing their own medicines been completed?
- 05How do your audits now show that identified problems have been fixed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; Safe, Caring and Responsive remained Good, while Effective and Well-led fell from Good to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 December 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.
What inspectors found, June 2017
The Callywhite Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some care planning and training improvements still in progress.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 May 2017. It was the first inspection after the home was registered in March 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines records and other management records.
Inspectors found that people were safe and cared for in a clean, well-maintained home. Medicines were managed safely. Staff were kind, respectful and knew people well. People received individual care, were supported with activities and were able to raise concerns.
The inspectors also found some areas that needed improving. Information about two people's health needs was not always clearly set out for staff. There were training gaps, some meals were not hot enough, and menus were not available in formats that could help people living with dementia. The overall rating and all five question ratings were Good.
Safe and clean surroundings
The home was clean, safe and well maintained. Equipment checks, emergency plans and infection control arrangements were in place.
“People received care in a clean, safe and well maintained environment.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treat people with kindness and respect. Staff supported people's comfort, dignity, privacy and independence.
“People received care from staff who were kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's routines, preferences and communication needs. They responded promptly when people needed help and supported a range of activities.
“People received individualised care from staff who understood people's needs and preferences for their care and what was important to them.” from the report
Safe medicines management
People received their medicines safely and when they needed them. Staff had training and competency checks for this work.
“People's medicines were safely managed and people received their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Health information was not always clear
seriousStaff knowledge about important parts of two people's health needs varied. Instructions from health professionals were difficult to find because they had not always been turned into clear care plans, creating a risk of inappropriate or ineffective care.
“However, staff's knowledge about important aspects of two people's health conditions and their related personal care requirements was variable.” from the report
Some training was outstanding
needs fixingInspectors found training gaps for some staff. The home had a plan and dates to complete training in areas including dementia care, infection control and care planning.
“Staff training records we looked at showed there were training gaps for some staff.” from the report
Some meals were not hot enough
minorA few people said meals were not always hot enough. Inspectors linked this mainly to food being served on cold plates and raised it with the registered manager.
“A few people felt their meals were not always kept hot enough when they received them, mainly due to being served onto cold plates, which we observed and referred to the registered manager.” from the report
Menus were not dementia-friendly
minorMenus were not provided in formats such as pictures that might help people living with dementia recognise the meals available. The home agreed to address this.
“However, food menus were not provided in any formats that may aid people living with dementia to recognise the meals offered.” from the report
Relative meetings had low attendance
minorAttempts were made to hold meetings with relatives, but attendance had not been good. A further meeting was planned at a different time.
“However, these had not been well attended.” from the report
- 01Have the revised electronic care plans been completed, and how do you make sure staff can quickly find instructions about health conditions and dietary or fluid needs?
- 02Have all planned staff training and competency checks been completed, especially for dementia care, infection control and care planning?
- 03What has changed to make sure meals are served hot enough?
- 04Do people living with dementia now have picture menus or other help to recognise the meal choices?
- 05How do you involve relatives who cannot attend the usual meetings in decisions about care and life at the home?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering the overall quality of the home and all five key questions after registration in March 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 June 2017 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 The Callywhite Care Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2019Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 October 2015.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.