You are here

Archived: Clanfield Residential Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 23 August 2016

This unannounced inspection took place on the 27 July 2016.

Clanfield accommodates and cares for up to 30 older persons with a range of mainly age related dependencies, including people with dementia care needs. There were 26 people in residence when we inspected.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

People were safe. Their needs were assessed before they were admitted to the home and regularly reviewed to ensure they received appropriate and timely care. They also benefited from being cared for by sufficient numbers of experienced staff that had received the training they needed to do their job safely. Staff knew what was expected of them when caring for older people, including those with dementia care needs, and they carried out their duties effectively and with compassion.

People were safeguarded from abuse and poor practice by staff that knew what action they needed to take if they suspected this was happening. There were recruitment procedures in place that protected people from receiving care from staff that were unsuited to the job.

People’s medicines were appropriately and safely managed. Medicines were securely stored and there were suitable arrangements in place for their timely administration. People’s healthcare needs were met and they received treatment from other community based healthcare professionals when this was necessary.

People’s individual nutritional needs were assessed, monitored and met with appropriate guidance from healthcare professionals that was acted upon when required. People had enough to eat and drink and enjoyed their meals. People that needed support with eating and drinking received the timely practical help they required. Sometimes staff, however, needed to be better at keeping people with dementia informed about their meal, such as describing what was on the plate even if the person’s comprehension of what was said had been compromised by their condition.

People’s individual preferences for the way they liked to receive their care and support were respected. People’s care needs had been assessed prior to admission and they each had an agreed care plan that reflected their individual needs. Their care plans were regularly reviewed and provided staff with the information and guidance they needed to do their job. People were enabled to do things for themselves by staff that were attentive to each person’s individual needs and understood their capabilities. People received support from staff that demonstrated that they understood what was required of them to provide people with the care they needed. Staff were caring, friendly, and attentive, although at times they could be better at engaging people in spontaneous conversation as they passed through communal areas.

People were treated with dignity and their right to make choices was upheld. There were imaginative activities to keep people entertained and constructively occupied if they chose to participate in them. People were kept informed of organised activities and were encouraged to make suggestions about what they wanted to do so plans could be made.

People’s views about the quality of their service were sought and acted upon. The quality of the service provided was regularly audited so that people benefitted from any improvements that were made. People and their relatives or significant others were assured that if they were dissatisfied with the quality of the service they would be listened to and that appropriate action would be taken to resolve matters to their satisfaction.

Inspection areas



Updated 23 August 2016

The service was safe.

People received their care from sufficient numbers of staff that had the experience and knowledge to provide safe care.

People�s care needs and any associated risks were assessed before they were admitted to the home. Risks were regularly reviewed and, where appropriate, acted upon with the involvement of other professionals so that people were kept safe.

People received the timely treatment they needed and their medicines were competently administered and securely stored.



Updated 23 August 2016

The service was effective.

People received care from staff that had the experience, training and acquired skills they needed to meet people�s needs.

People�s healthcare and nutritional needs were met and monitored so that other healthcare professionals were appropriately involved when necessary.

People benefitted from being cared for by staff that knew and acted upon their responsibilities as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and in relation to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).



Updated 23 August 2016

The service was caring.

People received their care from staff that encouraged them to do what they could for themselves, enabling them to retain as much independence as their capabilities allowed.

People were individually involved and supported to make choices about how they preferred their day-to-day care. Staff respected people�s preferences and the choices they were able to make about how they received their care.

People�s dignity was assured when they received personal care and they were treated with kindness and compassion.



Updated 23 August 2016

The service was responsive.

People�s needs were reviewed regularly so that they received the appropriate and timely care they needed.

People had care plans that reflected their individual needs and how these were to be met by the staff.

People were listened to and staff acted upon what they had to say.



Updated 23 August 2016

The service was well-led

People received care from staff that had the managerial support and guidance they needed to carry out their duties.

People benefited from receiving their care in a home that was effectively and conscientiously managed.

People�s quality of care was monitored by the systems in place and timely action was taken to make improvements to the service.