CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Allington Court Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Risk assessments were not always detailed, and staff did not always know about people's risks. Inspectors also found concerns about thickened drinks, falls, call bells, bed sensors and medicine records.
- Effective?
- Good
- No separate rating was given for Effective in this inspection report.
- Caring?
- Good
- No separate rating was given for Caring in this inspection report. People and relatives did report feeling safe and said staff were caring and respectful.
- Responsive?
- Good
- No separate rating was given for Responsive in this inspection report. Relatives said the management team was approachable and responsive, but one person said their wishes about food and drinking equipment had not always been respected.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Managers had audits and action plans, but these did not always identify problems with risk assessments, restrictive practices and medicines. Managers had started taking action and added resources.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks were not always managed safely and quality checks did not always identify problems.
This was an unannounced inspection by one inspector on 13 November 2023. The inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was not always safe. Some risk assessments lacked important detail, staff were not always aware of risks, and two drinks given to one person were not thickened as required. Some people could not use call bells, and inspectors found concerns about the use of bed sensors and other restrictions.
The home received Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Managers had started making changes and had added resources, but quality checks had not always found the problems. The previous rating was Good, published on 8 April 2021.
Medicine administration
People generally received their medicines when they needed them. The inspector observed safe techniques during a medicine round.
“People were supported to receive their medicines safely.” from the report
Safe recruitment
The provider completed the required recruitment checks before staff worked with people.
“A disclosure and barring service (DBS) check and satisfactory references had been obtained for all staff before they worked with people.” from the report
Supportive management
Staff and relatives said managers were approachable and supportive. Managers responded to the concerns raised and began making changes.
“Relatives and staff gave positive feedback on the responsiveness of the management team.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, use of protective equipment and managing infection risks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Risk information was incomplete
seriousSome risk assessments did not explain the risks clearly or tell staff what to do. Inspectors found that staff were not always aware of people's risks.
“Risk assessments did not identify the risk to the person and steps to take if they had a fall.” from the report
Swallowing risk
seriousOne person who needed thickened fluids was given two drinks that were not thickened. Inspectors said this created a risk of aspiration.
“At the time of the inspection the person had been given two drinks that where not thickened, this put the person at risk of aspiration.” from the report
Access to help
seriousSome people could not use call bells and said they had sometimes felt anxious and lonely while unable to get help. The provider began hourly checks for people who could not use call bells.
“People did not have always access to call bells in their bedrooms to call for assistance when needed.” from the report
Restrictions were not fully reviewed
needs fixingInspectors found that call bells and bed sensors were not always considered carefully for each person. The provider was asked to review whether these measures were appropriate and necessary.
“We recommend the provider reviews the use of the use of potential restrictive practices such as, call bells and bed sensors across the service to ensure these are appropriately used and regular reviews are completed.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousAudits and action plans existed, but they did not always identify problems with risk management, restrictive practices and medicines. This meant some improvements were not found promptly.
“Some of these audits did not identify failings in the quality of care.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make risk assessments more detailed and ensure all staff understand them?
- 02How do you prevent people who need thickened fluids from being given ordinary drinks?
- 03How can each resident call for help, particularly if they cannot use a call bell?
- 04How are bed sensors and other restrictions reviewed for each person, and how are best-interest decisions recorded?
- 05What checks now confirm that medicine patch records and other care records are complete and accurate?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, prompted partly by concerns about safety; the report does not give separate ratings for the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 January 2024 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, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found appropriate mobility support and reassuring infection control, while the previous overall rating remained Good.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 23 March 2021. It checked a specific concern about how people's mobility needs were supported, and also reviewed infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors spoke with four staff members, observed care and checked records including safeguarding reports, incident reports, daily notes and falls analysis. They found that mobility needs were assessed and reviewed, staff skills were checked, and accidents and unexplained bruises were reported appropriately.
The home was using suitable protective equipment, cleaning procedures and visiting arrangements. This inspection did not review the full Safe question or the other four questions, so it did not give new ratings. The previous overall rating was Good and remained unchanged.
Mobility support
People's mobility needs were assessed when they arrived and reviewed regularly. Inspectors observed gentle and appropriate support for someone using a walking frame.
“People's mobility needs were assessed on admission to the home and regularly reviewed to help ensure the support provided continued to meet people's changing needs.” from the report
Staff competence
The home checked staff competence through daily checks, observations and supervision. Issues identified were dealt with promptly.
“Staff competency was assessed as part of management daily checks and observations.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, supporting testing and keeping its infection control policy up to date.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Family contact
Visits were supported in line with current guidance. Staff also helped people keep in touch through video calls and FaceTime.
“Visits were being supported in line with current guidance and staff also supported people to have video calls and face time with family and friends.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will my relative's mobility needs be assessed when they move in and reviewed as those needs change?
- 02How do you check that staff are competent to support people with walking frames and other mobility needs?
- 03What happens after a fall, unexplained bruise or other incident, and how will the family be told?
- 04How are visits, video calls and other contact with family currently arranged?
- 05How do you keep PPE, testing, cleaning and infection control arrangements up to date?
This was a targeted inspection of specific mobility concerns and infection prevention and control; it did not assess the full Safe question or the other four questions, so their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 April 2021 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 Allington Court Care Home
4 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 November 2010.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.