You are here

Campania Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 19 February 2020

About the service

Campania is a care home. The home specialises in the care of people with alcohol related problems such as Korsakoff's syndrome. Campania is a large Victorian building and the accommodation is spread over four floors. The home can accommodate a maximum of 41 people. The top floor was for people who were ready to move on. There were five rooms with en-suite toilet and sink. Currently five rooms on the top floor were occupied. There were kitchen and laundry facilities and two shared bathrooms in the home. At the time of the inspection 40 people were living at Campania.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Safe practice was not always followed to ensure people’s medicines were safely administered which placed people at risk. We reviewed the plans in place to support people safely from the building during an evacuation. Guidance for staff was not always clear placing people at risk, for example, in the event of a fire. The environment was not well maintained, we found several health and safety concerns that placed people at risk, including trip hazards and poor management of infection control.

Recruitment processes did not minimise the risk of employing unsuitable staff and there were mixed views as to whether there was always enough staff on duty. Staff and people told us they had appointments cancelled if there was not enough staff to go with them. Staff training was not up to date, this included safeguarding training which meant the provider could not be sure people were being supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs.

People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible, or in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice. There were generic care plans in place, people did not always have choice, some decisions did not always involve people or their representatives, and dignity was not always upheld. For example, the provider held people’s cigarettes and asked them to line up in a communal area to receive cigarettes one at a time

Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. Care plans did not have communication profiles for people, which meant there was no evidence, that where needed, the service supported people to communicate and understand according to their needs. People told us they were bored; People told us the activities were not based on everyone’s interests.

Governance systems included internal and provider level audits and regular checks of the environment and service to ensure people received good care. We found these systems were not always fully effective in driving improvement. Whilst it was not evident this had any significant impact on people, it did not evidence a fully effective governance system was in operation and placed people at risk.

We saw some positive interactions during the inspection, with most staff being kind and friendly when supporting people. The provider analysed accidents and incidents to look for trends or ways to prevent a recurrence. There was a business continuity plan in place and we found safety checks of fire maintenance, gas, electrical safety, and safe use of water outlets were all up to date. The provider had already identified a lot of the concerns found during the inspection through their provider level audits. These had been added to the provider’s improvement plan.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection (and update) The last rating for this service was good (published 15 March 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.


Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 19 February 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 19 February 2020

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 19 February 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 19 February 2020

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 19 February 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.