CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Austen Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found hygiene problems in communal toilet and bathroom areas and an unsuitable container being used for sharps. They also found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines administration and systems for managing risks.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments and care plans. Staff were trained, people were supported with eating, drinking and healthcare, and staff sought consent and supported people's choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so the report does not give a current Caring rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so the report does not give a current Responsive rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team used audits, surveys and meetings to monitor quality and make improvements. Inspectors found an open culture and said concerns identified during the inspection were acted on promptly.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind and effective care, but safety practices were not always good enough.
The inspection took place on 29 June and 3 July 2023. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. Inspectors spoke with one person living at the home, 11 relatives and 13 staff. They also observed care and checked care, medicine, infection control, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective and well-led were rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because inspectors found poor hygiene in some communal toilets and bathrooms, and an unsuitable container was being used for used needles. The home acted immediately when these issues were raised, and no harm was found.
The home had enough staff, trained staff to give medicines, detailed care plans and systems to learn from accidents. People were supported with food, drink, health appointments and their choices. The overall rating stayed Good, but the Safe rating fell from Good at the previous inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's care and safety needs. Recruitment checks were also in place.
“There were sufficient staff to care for people safely.” from the report
Medicines training
Staff giving medicines had been trained and their competence was checked regularly. Medicine records, including controlled medicines, were accurate.
“Staff had been trained to administer medicines safely and had their competence regularly checked.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences and dietary requirements. People were supported to make choices and give consent.
“Assessments and care plans reflected people's equality characteristics and individual preferences.” from the report
Quick management action
The management team acted immediately when inspectors raised concerns about infection control and sharps disposal. New checks and staff supervision were introduced.
“Concerns we identified in relation to IPC and medicines were promptly addressed and acted on by the management team.” from the report
Poor hygiene in some communal areas
seriousInspectors found items on the floor and a soiled item in an open bin in a communal toilet. The provider replaced bins and introduced more frequent checks.
“In the communal toilet on Dashwood unit there were items such as tissue, incontinence pads and wet wipes were on the floor and an open metal bin contained a soiled item.” from the report
Unsafe sharps container
seriousAn ice cream container was being used for used needles. Inspectors said this could allow needles or other sharps to puncture the container, although no harm was found.
“The type of material the ice cream tub is made from may not be strong enough to prevent needles or other sharps from puncturing it.” from the report
- 01What checks are now made on communal toilets and bathrooms, and how often are the results reviewed?
- 02How do you make sure all staff use the correct sharps bins for used needles and other sharps?
- 03What evidence can you show that the infection control improvements introduced during the inspection have been maintained?
- 04How are staff supervised after the new infection control procedures were introduced?
- 05Which ratings from the previous inspection still apply because Caring and Responsive were not inspected this time?
This was a focused inspection prompted by a review of information, covering Safe, Effective and Well-led; the Caring and Responsive ratings were not given in this report and the overall rating used the previous ratings for any key questions not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 August 2023 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, October 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and improving leadership, but noted agency staffing, communication and record-keeping issues.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 5 October 2021. Inspectors looked mainly at whether people were safe and whether the home was well-led. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and managers, and checked care records, medicines records, staffing information and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff overall, safe medicines support, suitable infection control arrangements and systems for managing risks and learning from incidents. People told inspectors they were happy with their care and felt safe.
The inspection followed concerns about staffing and management, but inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. The home had a new manager and staff said morale had improved. However, several managers had left previously, some relatives were not aware of the management change, and the home was still using agency staff.
People felt safe
People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care. Inspectors found staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.
“People were happy with the standard of care and support they received.” from the report
Risk management
People's risks were assessed and reviewed. Staff knew how to support individual needs while maintaining safety and independence.
“Risks to people were identified with comprehensive assessments and care plans in place.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for PPE, testing, visits, hygiene and managing infection outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Improving leadership
Staff spoke positively about the new manager and said morale had improved. The manager had identified areas for improvement and created schedules for staff supervision and appraisals.
“Staff spoke positively about the manager and felt the culture and morale of staff had improved since they had been appointed.” from the report
Use of agency staff
needs fixingStaff reported that having more permanent staff would improve consistency. The home was using agency staff to cover vacancies, although recruitment had recently improved.
“More of our own regular staff rather than agency would be good. It is improving with recruitment and lots of new staff joining us.” from the report
Call-bell response
needs fixingInspectors saw enough staff overall, but one relative said their family member did not always receive a prompt response to the call bell.
“However, one relative reported their family member felt staff did not always respond to their call bell promptly.” from the report
Communication with relatives
needs fixingSome relatives did not know that the manager had changed. The manager acknowledged that communication with relatives needed to improve.
“Not all relatives we spoke with were aware of the change of manager and therefore felt communication could be improved.” from the report
Medicine temperature records
minorThe manager gave assurances that staff would record fridge and room temperatures more consistently on one unit.
“The manager provided assurances to improve staff's consistent recording of fridge and room temperatures on one unit, Deborough.” from the report
Management registration
needs fixingThere was no manager registered with the CQC at the time of inspection. The provider was legally responsible for how the home was run.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
Storage of sterile dressings
minorInspectors gave advice about sterile dressings being stored under sinks. This was an infection prevention and control issue the home was expected to address.
“This included obtaining infection prevention and control practice advice in relation to the storage of sterile dressings stored under sink areas.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff now work in the home, and how often are agency staff still used?
- 02How do you monitor and respond to call bells, especially for people who may not be able to report delays?
- 03How will you keep relatives informed about management changes and other important updates?
- 04What action has been taken to improve fridge and room temperature recording on the Deborough unit?
- 05Has the manager applied to become registered with the CQC, and what is the current position?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 October 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 Austen Court Care Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 May 2017.
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 Worcestershire
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 £1,260 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.