We carried out a review of the data available to us about Calway House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Calway House, you can give feedback on this service.
Calway House is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to up to 92 people. The home provides care and accommodation to older adults including people living with dementia.
The building was divided into five suites. Maple and Spruce cared for people who required support with personal care, Laurel and Cedar provided nursing care to people and Sycamore supported people who were living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 50 people living at the home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People lived in a home where improvements had been made to ensure their care and support was personalised to them.
Improvements had been made to the meal-time experience and people received the support they required to eat and drink.
People lived in a home which was well maintained and safe. Staff followed up to date guidance on infection prevention and control to minimise risks to people.
There were systems in place, and adequate numbers of well-trained staff, to maintain people’s comfort and safety.
Staff felt well supported which led to a happy atmosphere for people to live in.
People could be confident that the management team monitored standards and took action where shortfalls were identified.
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; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (report published 16 September 2019) and we identified two breaches in regulations.
The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve.
At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 13-14 August 2019. Breaches of legal requirements were found. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve Person-centred care and Good governance.
We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the key questions Safe, Effective and Well-led which contained those requirements.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Calway House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The building was divided into five suites. Maple and Spruce cared for people who required support with personal care, Laurel and Cedar provided nursing care to people and Sycamore supported people who were living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 88 people living at the home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People lived in a home where quality audits were carried out but were not always effective in ensuring improvements were made. Shortfalls identified at this inspection had not all been identified and addressed by the provider’s own quality assurance systems.
People did not always receive person centred care to support their needs and promote their well-being. The mealtime experience was poor and there was limited social stimulation particularly for people who were unable to occupy themselves. There were activity staff, but they did not always encourage and support people to continue to pursue their hobbies and interests.
Each person who lived at the home had a care plan, but these did not always give clear guidance to help staff to effectively support people. Where people showed behaviour, which may indicate they were not content there were no consistent plans to support them. This meant their care plans could not be fully evaluated to promote the person’s well-being and identify what caused or alleviated the person’s anxiety.
People generally received their medicines in a safe way, as prescribed for them. However, there were a few areas for improvement to ensure best practice guidance was followed.
People felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them. People told us staff were always kind and respected their privacy and dignity. Visitors said they always felt welcomed at the home and staff kept them informed about the care of their loved ones.
People lived in a comfortable home which was well-maintained and regular checks were carried out to promote people’s safety. People had bedrooms where they could spend time in private or with visitors. There were ample communal spaces and garden areas for people to use.
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; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People told us staff asked for their consent before assisting them.
The new management team were committed to making improvements to the quality of life people experienced and supporting staff to provide more person-centred care.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection.
The rating at the last inspection was good (Published 14/03/2017)
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Calway House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvement. Please see the safe, effective, responsive and well led sections of this full report.
You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.
Follow up
We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People remained safe at the home. People told us there were adequate numbers of suitable staff to meet their needs and to spend time socialising with them. Risk assessments were carried out to enable people to retain their independence and receive care with minimum risk to themselves or others. People received their medicines safely.
People continued to receive effective care because staff had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support them. People’s healthcare needs were monitored by the staff and people said they had access to healthcare professionals according to their individual needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The home continued to provide a caring service to people. People told us, and we observed, that staff were kind and patient. A visitor told us “The care here is very, very good. They are kind and really care about the people they look after.” People, or their representatives, were involved in decisions about the care and support they received.
The service remained responsive to people’s individual needs. Each unit provided a service tailored to people’s needs. Care and support was personalised to ensure as far as people were able to they made choices about their day to day lives. Complaints were fully investigated and responded to.
The service continued to be well led. People told us the management within the home were open and approachable. The registered manager and provider sought people’s views to make sure people were at the heart of any changes within the home. One person told us “(The manager) is very approachable. You could easily bring up issues. We have residents meetings and they do listen.” The registered manager and provider had thorough monitoring systems which enabled them to identify good practices and areas of improvement. The manager and their team of senior staff continued to improve and develop some areas of the service. Current projects were the replacement of the call bells which people found too noisy and a review of the way in which activities were organised and delivered in the home.
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.
Calway House is registered to provide care for up to 83 people. The home is organised into five units enabling people to receive different levels of care and support. Laurel and Cedar have 37 places for people who require nursing care. Maple and Spruce offer residential care. Sycamore has places for 15 people who are living with dementia.
The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider; as does the provider.
Throughout our inspection we observed how staff provided a safe and secure environment. One person told us “I trust the staff” and another person said “the staff know what they are doing”. A relative told us “We are very satisfied with the care and feel confident (relative) is being looked after well. We do not have any worries about how she is being treated and cared for.”
People told us staff were “caring and kind”. One person told us “staff are so kind and friendly”. Another person said “It is lovely here, staff are very good, and girls are kind and care for me.” A relative told us “The care is first rate, I am happy my relatives are here.” Another relative told us “Just the most wonderful place, we are touched by the fun, love and care.”
There was availability of staff and people’s needs were generally being met in a timely manner. Interactions were respectful and enabled people to lead an independent and dignified life. There were meaningful activities suited to people’s interests and abilities.
People told us they felt safe in the home and had confidence in the skills of care staff to meet their needs. Relatives were very positive about the care provided and felt involved in how care was delivered. People’s welfare and best interests were protected.
People had access to other healthcare professional to ensure their health needs were being met. The service involved other professionals such as dieticians and tissue viability nurse so they were able to provide appropriate and effective care.
We saw how staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and how these could be met. Care was provided in a way which had respect for people’s choices. Where people had complex needs either of a physical or mental health nature the service liaised and sought the advice and guidance of other professionals.
The service provided a variety of ways for people to express their views and make suggestions about the quality of care and facilities. This included formal questionnaires, themed conversations and You Say We Do scheme. People told us they felt able to express their views and raise any concerns with the manager of the service. One person told us “I can always go and see the manager if I have any worries.”
There were a range of methods used to look at the quality of the service. Included were internal and external audits and action had been taken to address any shortfalls or need for improvement in the quality of care. The service also used observational tools to monitor the practice and competency of staff.
The service is a member of the Gold Standards Framework. This aims to provide a gold standard of care and best quality of life for all people particularly near the end of their lives.
People living at the home told us that they were able to make choices about their day to day lives. One person told us 'Staff are very polite and kind. I can spend the day more or less as I wish. I go to some activities and give others a miss.'
We found most people were able to tell us about their care and were very happy with the support they received. People said "We are well looked after. Staff are very good. They always come if you need help. "
The home was clean and there was evidence of infection control measures in place in people' rooms and throughout the service.
We saw that the home operated a system of recruitment designed to employ staff who were suitable for their post and safe to care for people in the home.
The provider, Somerset Care Ltd. had developed a quality assurance programme which was in line with the essential standards of quality and safety. People's views about the care they received was sought and action taken to address any concerns raised.
We saw evidence that people had the medicines that were prescribed for them at the correct time. The provider had an appropriate system in place to ensure that medications were given and stored safely.
On the day that we inspected the unit there were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. In the dining room staff had time to give individual attention to people. All people had received personal care that morning and there was a relaxed and ordered atmosphere.
All the people we met spoke very positively about the care they received in the home. People told us 'everybody is very good to me' and 'they do their best for me.'
People told us they had no concerns about living in the home. They said that they were well looked after. One person said 'We feel safe here. We have nothing to worry about.'
We saw that interactions between staff and people receiving care were kindly and relaxed. People told us that if they had any concerns or worries there were people they would felt able to talk to.
The home had a clear management structure that supported staff and people who lived in the home. Records were clear, comprehensive and current. A quality assurance system was based on people's views gathered through focussed interviews. We were able to see where changes to the service had been made as a result of this system.