You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 26 September 2018

We carried out this unannounced comprehensive inspection on 8 August 2018.

Canterbury House is a care home for up to 63 adults. People who are older are the primary users of this service. There is a separate living unit called Turner on the lower ground floor that accommodates people living with dementia. This has two courtyard garden areas that are accessible and safe. This is a large purpose-built care home that also has a swimming pool and several private suits on the top floor. Gardens and seating areas are available for use by everyone.

People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. This service does not provide nursing care.

The service had a manager who had applied to become registered. They were present throughout the inspection. 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.

The last comprehensive inspection was completed on 6 July 2017. We gave a rating of requires improvement and there was a breach in regulation relating to safeguarding people from abuse. At this inspection we found that matters were greatly improved and the service is rated good. Therefore, the provider was no longer in breach of any regulations.

The provider Anchor, through its management structure and the appointment of a new manager have made improvements to this service. We found that our concerns had been responded to and resolved. Staff knew how to use their safeguarding training and ensure people were protected. Complaints were taken seriously and used to drive developments and change. People were listened to and suggestions made implemented. We found a more settled and inclusive service that staff were proud to belong to.

People who lived at the service told us that managers and staff were available to them. Staffing was suitable. There were enough staff who were appropriately trained, but equally important staff were kind and caring. We saw and heard of several examples of staff attentiveness to people and their needs. People and staff felt valued.

There had been developments with the environment and opportunities for people living with dementia. This was work ongoing with more training being rolled out, even on the day of our visit.

People had access to suitable healthcare with initiatives of new ways to monitor the most vulnerable people being implemented with regular multidisciplinary meetings. People were provided with good quality food that they liked and people were well hydrated. Staff were mindful and used their imitative to encourage people to remember to drink.

People were involved and consulted with all aspects of their care and support. Families were positive about their experiences and the care given to their family member.

The service was monitored by the provider to help ensure its ongoing quality and safety. The provider’s governance framework, helped monitor the management and leadership of the service, as well as the ongoing quality and safety of the care support people were receiving.

Inspection areas



Updated 26 September 2018

The service was safe.

People had detailed care plans, which included an assessment of risk. These contained sufficient detail to inform staff of risk factors and action they should take.

People were supported by trained staff who knew what action to take if they suspected abuse was taking place.

There were enough staff to support people. Safe recruitment systems were in place.

People's medicines were managed safely.



Updated 26 September 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had received training and supervision to carry out their roles.

Consent to care and treatment was sought in line with legislation and guidance. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and put this into practice.

Staff protected people from the risk of poor nutrition and dehydration.

People had their health needs met and were referred to healthcare professionals promptly when needed.



Updated 26 September 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them well.

People were involved in all aspects of their care and in their care plans.

People were treated with dignity and respect by staff who communicated well.

People were encouraged to express their views and to make choices.



Updated 26 September 2018

The service was responsive.

Support was flexible and responded to individual needs and enabled them to access activities of their choosing.

Regularly reviewed care plans provided detailed information to staff on people's care needs and how they wished to be supported.

The manager logged complaints and responded to them in a personalised way.



Updated 26 September 2018

The service was well led.

The provider had quality monitoring processes to promote the safety and quality of the service.

People who used the service and their relatives were asked for their views to develop the service further.

There was an open, positive and supportive culture at the service.

Staff felt well supported.