CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Acorn Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Acorn Court Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control.
Inspectors visited the home on 27 October 2020 as part of a targeted review during the coronavirus pandemic. The inspection looked at infection prevention and control measures, rather than giving an overall quality rating.
Inspectors found good arrangements for visits, including timed bookings, designated areas, personal protective equipment and track and trace systems. People could also use video calls to keep in touch with relatives who could not visit.
The home supported regular COVID-19 testing for staff and residents. Staff had infection control and protective equipment training, and there were plans for managing an outbreak, including separate zones.
The service was marked “Inspected but not rated”. Inspectors said they were assured about the infection prevention and control arrangements, but the inspection did not assess the other main areas of care.
Supported family visits
People who could follow social distancing guidance were supported to see relatives through a booked visiting system. Visits took place in designated areas with staff support.
“People that were able to follow social distancing guidance were supported to have visits from their relatives through a pre booked timed system.” from the report
Contact with relatives
The home offered video calls throughout the day for people whose relatives could not visit.
“This was offered throughout the day to support emotional wellbeing of people who used the service.” from the report
Testing and protective equipment
Visitors were given protective equipment, and staff and residents were supported with regular COVID-19 testing. Staff had training in infection control and using protective equipment.
“Staff and people were supported with regular testing for COVID-19” from the report
Outbreak planning
There were risk assessments for people and staff in higher-risk groups. The home had planned how to manage a COVID-19 outbreak, including zoning areas.
“The deputy manager had planned how to manage an outbreak of COVID-19 in the home, Including zoning of rooms and areas.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach. The report does not explain what specific improvement was needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01How are family visits arranged now, and what infection control measures are used?
- 02How are residents supported to keep in touch with relatives who cannot visit?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested, and what happens after a positive result?
- 04What is the current plan for managing an infection outbreak, including zoning areas?
- 05What changes were made after inspectors signposted resources to develop the infection control approach?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 November 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but staffing was sometimes tight and one medicine record was incomplete.
Inspectors visited without notice on 11 and 12 December 2019. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People generally felt safe and were treated kindly. Care plans were personalised, staff supported healthcare needs, and activities helped people stay involved.
There were some shortfalls. Staffing was not always enough when staff were absent at short notice. Inspectors also found one unexplained gap in a medicine administration record. People's views about the food were mixed.
The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 26 May 2017. The report says the home would continue to be monitored and could be inspected sooner if concerning information was received.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind, polite and respectful. Inspectors observed that privacy and dignity were protected.
“Staff were caring and kind to people.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, interests and how they wanted support. They were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“Care plans were person centred which meant people's needs, preferences and how they wanted staff to support them were detailed.” from the report
Good healthcare support
Staff worked with a range of health professionals to support people's needs. The home also had links with a local hospice.
“Records showed staff effectively worked with professionals such as and dietitians, community psychiatry nurses, speech and language therapists, chiropodists and dentists to meet people's needs.” from the report
Quality checks
Managers used audits, surveys, meetings and reviews of incidents and complaints to monitor the service and identify improvements.
“There were various processes to monitor the quality of services provided to make improvements as required.” from the report
Staffing was sometimes tight
needs fixingAlthough staffing was enough during the inspection, people and staff said there were times when there were not enough staff, especially after sickness at short notice.
“Although there were enough staff most of the time, there were times when the staffing levels were not adequate.” from the report
One medicine record gap
needs fixingInspectors found one unexplained gap where a staff member had not signed to confirm a medicine was given. Managers said they would check why this happened.
“There was only one unexplained gap where it was noted staff did not sign on the records to confirm they had administered the medicine.” from the report
Mixed views about food
minorPeople's opinions about the food differed. The home assessed dietary needs and preferences, but families should check how well menus suit their relative.
“People's views about the food were mixed. One person told us, "I don't like the food.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure there are enough staff when someone is off sick at short notice?
- 02What action was taken after the unexplained gap in the medicine administration record?
- 03How are my relative's food preferences, cultural needs and medical dietary needs recorded and followed?
- 04How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed if their needs change?
- 05What activities and community links would be suitable for my relative?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the care home premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 January 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Acorn Court Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 October 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.