You are here

The provider of this service has requested a review of one or more of the ratings.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 29 June 2019

About the service:

Canal Vue is a care home that provides personal care for up to 70 people. The accommodation is available over three floors. However, at the time of the inspection only the ground floor was in use. The ground floor contains bedrooms, bathing facilities, a communal lounge, with a dining area and a further two communal spaces. At the time of the inspection there were 13 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

Some improvements had been made to some areas of the home. However, the provider had not ensured the required improvements had been made to all areas of the service. Good care is the minimum that people receiving services should expect and deserve to receive and we found the systems in place to ensure improvements were made and sustained were not effective.

Systems to monitor the service had not identified the improvements that were still needed. People were not always protected from harm as action had not been taken where risk had been identified. Quality monitoring had been inconsistent, we saw that audits had been completed, however they did not always identify concerns. Any concerns raised were not always addressed to ensure changes and improvements were embedded.

Notifications had not always been completed to inform us of events or concerns.

During the inspection we saw there were sufficient staff to support people’s needs. However, it was identified by the staff that at some periods in the day and night there were not always enough staff to ensure people’s safety.

People’s risks had been identified, however these were not always followed or reflective when people’s needs changed. Some areas of the home were not always cleaned to a standard to reduce the risk or control of infection.

Lessons had been learnt in some areas, however other areas still required further commitment in ensuring when changes were required they were carried through and sustained.

Some people’s independence had not been promoted when they had their meals. When people spent time in their rooms they did not always have access to a call bell to enable them to request support.

The summary care plans were not always up to date to reflect people’s needs at a glance. However, the main care plans were detailed and reflected people’s needs.

Improvements had been made in relation to the activities and daily choices being made available to people.. The care people received was respectful and caring. Relatives were welcome. Their views had been considered and these had influenced the food choices available.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Staff were recruited to ensure the relevant checks had been completed. People’s weight had been monitored

The service worked in partnership with a range of health and social care professionals and these relationships had supported peoples to have good health outcomes and consider their wellbeing.

Rating at last inspection: Inadequate (Published November 2018)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection which was Inadequate. Which means the location was placed in special measures. At this inspection we saw improvements had been made, however not enough for us to remove the rating of ‘Inadequate’ and remove the service from ‘special measures’.

This means we will keep the service under review and, if we do not propose to cancel the provider’s registration, we will re-inspect within 6 months to check for significant improvements.

Enforcement: At our last inspection we placed positive conditions on the provider in relation to this location. These required the provider to consult us ahead of any new admissions and to provide us with a monthly report in relation to quality improvements. Although improvements had been made, this did not reflect a sust

Inspection areas



Updated 29 June 2019

The service was not safe

Details are in our Safe findings below.



Updated 29 June 2019

The service was effective

Details are in our Effective findings below


Requires improvement

Updated 29 June 2019

The service was not always caring

Details are in our caring findings below


Requires improvement

Updated 29 June 2019

The service was not always responsive

Details are in our Responsive findings below



Updated 29 June 2019

The service was not Well led

Details are in our Safe findings below.