CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Cornerstone
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
What inspectors found, May 2018
The Cornerstone was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor repairs still being addressed.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 17 April 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and other professionals. They observed daily life, checked the building, and reviewed care records, medicines, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, staff understood people's needs and there were enough staff during the day.
People were involved in their care, activities and meal planning. Staff were described as kind and respectful. The home had improved its risk assessments, consent records and quality checks since the previous inspection in February 2017, when it was rated Requires Improvement and had three regulatory breaches.
Safe care
Risks, fire procedures and medicines were managed appropriately. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.
“People were safeguarded from the risks of abuse. Risks associated with people's care had been identified and appropriately managed.” from the report
Kind staff
Inspectors saw friendly and respectful relationships between staff and people. People's dignity, privacy and choices were respected.
“We observed staff interacting with people who used the service and found them to be kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, interests and preferred ways of communicating. People were supported to take part in activities and the community.
“People received personalised care that responded to their individual needs.” from the report
Improved management
The home had strengthened its audits and used action plans to identify and address issues. People, relatives and staff were involved in the running of the home.
“Audits took place to ensure quality of service was maintained and action taken when required.” from the report
Minor bathroom repairs
minorInspectors found that a worn ground-floor toilet seat needed replacing and that the seal around the downstairs bath needed attention. The manager was aware and had started work to address these issues.
“We saw one toilet seat on the ground floor, which needed replacing as it had worn.” from the report
Bath seal
minorThe downstairs bathroom required repair to the seal around the bath. The report does not say whether this work had been completed by the inspection date.
“We also saw a bathroom downstairs which required attention to the seal around the bath.” from the report
- 01Have the worn ground-floor toilet seat and downstairs bath seal now been repaired?
- 02How will you assess and manage the specific risks affecting my relative?
- 03How will my relative be involved in their care plan, activities and decisions?
- 04What training and supervision will the staff supporting my relative receive?
- 05How can my relative or our family raise a concern, and how will it be followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection checking the overall service and whether concerns from February 2017 had been addressed; all five key questions were rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 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.
What inspectors found, March 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive support, but gaps in risk management, medicines, capacity records and oversight.
The unannounced inspection took place on 21 February 2017. Inspectors spoke with four people using the home, two care workers and the home manager. They observed care, checked care records, medicines, staff files and the home's quality checks.
People were treated kindly and respectfully. Care plans were reviewed and reflected people's choices and changing needs. People were supported with meals, family relationships, community activities and social interests.
The inspectors found important weaknesses. Some risks had not been managed properly, medicines records were not always clear, and one bathroom had no hand wash or towels. Records about people's mental capacity were not detailed enough, some training records had gaps, and audits had failed to identify problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The provider was required to send an action plan, and the CQC said it would check that action was taken.
Kind and respectful care
Staff interacted well with people and respected their privacy, dignity, choices and preferences.
“We observed staff interacting with people who used the service and found they were kind, caring, polite and considerate.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans reflected people's likes, dislikes, wishes and changing needs. They were reviewed monthly and included small goals chosen by the person.
“Care plans were reviewed on a monthly basis and mini goals were identified.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to take part in community activities and interests, including shopping, day centres, walks and recycling.
“We saw that people were involved in community activities as well as activities at the service.” from the report
Daytime staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff during the day to meet people's needs and support community activities. The three recruitment files checked contained the required pre-employment checks.
“On the day of our inspection we saw there were enough staff available to support people at the service and also to assist people to engage in activities in the community.” from the report
Risks were not always controlled
seriousSome risks had been identified but not dealt with adequately. At night, one sleeping-in staff member was responsible for a building with bedrooms on three floors, and people had no call system or other way to contact them.
“Risks associated with people's care had been identified but not always addressed appropriately.” from the report
Medicines and environmental safety
seriousThe room where medicines were stored had no recorded temperature checks, and instructions for medicines given when needed were unclear. Cleaning products were not locked away, and an upstairs bathroom had no hand wash or towels.
“We identified some concerns with the safe handling of medicines.” from the report
Mental capacity records
seriousRecords gave only a brief overview of capacity. They did not explain capacity for particular decisions or how staff should support the person.
“However, this was not decision specific and did not give any further detail on how to support the person.” from the report
Training records had gaps
needs fixingStaff said they received suitable training, but records showed gaps in areas including infection control and the Mental Capacity Act. There were no plans to find alternative training when places were limited.
“We saw that there were some gaps on the training matrix which indicated that some training had not been completed in areas such as infection control and Mental Capacity Act 2005.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousAudits did not contain enough detail and failed to identify several problems found during the inspection. This meant the home was not reliably identifying and correcting risks.
“Monitoring of the service was ineffective as they did not identify concerns within the service.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to keep people safe at night, particularly when only one sleeping-in staff member is present and people cannot use a call system?
- 02How are medicine storage temperatures now recorded, and how are clear instructions provided for medicines given on an 'as and when' required basis?
- 03Have mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions been completed for each relevant decision, and how are staff told to support people?
- 04Which staff training was missing at the inspection, and has all required training now been completed?
- 05How do managers now check that audits identify problems such as infection control, medicines and risk management concerns?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; the report also compares progress with earlier inspections in February and June 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 March 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 Cornerstone
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- March 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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
97 live-in carers within about an hour of Rotherham
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. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.