- Care home
Cann House Care Home
Report from 6 January 2025 assessment
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 21 January to 29 January 2025. Cann House is a care home registered to provide personal and nursing care for a maximum of 62 people. There were 46 people living at the service at the time of our assessment. This assessment was prompted by concerns we received about the service. Our overall rating for this service has changed to requires improvement. The systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and the care people received were not always robust or effective. Risks to people were not always being managed well, and care plans did not always contain enough information to guide staff. Care plans were not always up to date or reflective of people’s needs. Improvements were needed to ensure all medicines were managed in a safe way. Risks associated with the environment people lived in had not always been identified which put people at risk of harm. Staff had not ensured people’s rights were protected in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. However, staff were recruited safely and received training. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and they felt supported, listened to and involved. The service was clean and infection prevention and control procedures were followed. There were safeguarding procedures in place to protect people. The provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to people’s safe care and treatment, including medicines management and governance systems. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
People and their relatives were mostly positive about the service and told us they felt safe, and staff were kind and caring. However, some people and relatives felt staffing levels could be improved, especially at the weekends and general communication could be improved.
Whilst we found people were not always receiving care that protected them from risk, people told us staff knew them well and supported them in a way that met their needs and promoted their independence. One person told us, “I don’t think they could be doing anything better; it meets my needs.” A relative told us, “Staff are kind to my relative. Permanent staff form relationships with residents and are familiar with their needs.”
Although we found aspects of the environment were not always safe, people and relatives were extremely positive about the environment they lived in and the cleanliness of the service. Comments included, “It’s nice, lovely and clean. There are never any smells. Aunty is always clean, I’ve got no complaints about it here”, “The home is clean and well kept. Surprisingly so. Just like a hotel. No smells” and “The home is spotlessly clean. The room is beautiful.”
Whilst people we spoke with told us staff respected their choices and sought their permission before giving care, we found people’s rights were not always being protected in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
People were protected from the risk of abuse as staff knew how to safeguard people. People were supported to access health care when they needed.