CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Burlington Court
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found gaps in access to masks, handwashing facilities, waste bins and cleaning schedules. The home supported isolation, safer visiting and regular Covid-19 testing.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found that management was open about the problems and that staff felt supported to raise concerns. Staff meetings and supervision were used to resolve issues and improve the service.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Inspected but not rated; the home had infection-control gaps but acted quickly, and its previous overall rating remained Outstanding.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 13 August 2020. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, and whether staff could report concerns. They spoke with staff, observed people living with dementia, and checked records.
Inspectors found problems with access to masks, handwashing facilities, waste bins, cleaning schedules and some infection-control policies. These issues meant people were not always protected from the risk of infection.
The home supported people to isolate, arranged safer family visits and carried out regular Covid-19 testing. The registered manager provided an action plan on the day, showing immediate steps to improve the problems found.
The inspection was not a full assessment and no new rating was given. The previous overall rating of Outstanding remained unchanged, but this inspection should not be read as confirmation that every part of the service was still Outstanding.
Quick response to problems
The registered manager provided an action plan on the day of inspection. It showed immediate steps to improve access to protective equipment, the environment, cleaning and policies.
“At the end of the inspection day the registered manager provided us with an action plan which demonstrated they had taken immediate action” from the report
Support for isolation
People entering the home or returning from hospital were supported to isolate for 14 days. People living with dementia who could not comply were supported in small groups with fewer staff.
“People were supported to isolate themselves to help protect them from the coronavirus.” from the report
Staff could raise concerns
Staff said they were supported by managers and that concerns were acted on quickly.
“Where staff had raised concerns, these had been acted upon immediately.” from the report
Open management
Managers recognised the areas needing improvement and were open with inspectors. Team meetings and supervision were used to learn from problems.
“The manager and deputy managers were open and transparent throughout the inspection” from the report
Limited access to protective equipment
seriousStaff did not always have easy access to masks and the correct bins for used protective equipment. This created a risk of infection spreading.
“People were not always protected from the risk of infection because staff did not always have easy access to masks” from the report
Handwashing facilities
seriousSome areas where staff handled used laundry, soiled pads and protective equipment had no washbasin. Soap, paper towels or hand gel were not always available.
“Staff did not have easy access to hand washing facilities: areas where staff disposed of used laundry, soiled pads and PPE did not have wash hand basins.” from the report
Cleaning and infection-control policy
needs fixingSluice areas were visibly dirty and had no regular cleaning checks. The infection prevention policy did not include individual risk assessments for staff.
“The sluice areas were visibly dirty; there were no regular cleaning schedules to check these.” from the report
- 01Have all the planned changes been made so staff can get masks easily and dispose of used protective equipment safely?
- 02Do all areas used for soiled laundry, pads and protective equipment now have handwashing facilities, soap, paper towels and hand gel?
- 03How often are the sluice areas cleaned, and who checks and records this?
- 04Has the infection prevention policy been updated to include individual risk assessments for staff?
- 05How are staff supported to report concerns, and can you show how recent concerns have led to changes?
This was a targeted inspection of specific parts of Safe and Well-led, mainly infection control and staff culture; it did not reassess the other questions or the previous ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 September 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, December 2019
Rated Outstanding; inspectors found exceptionally caring and responsive support, with a few records needing correction.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 and 17 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They also reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The overall rating was Outstanding. Caring and Responsive were Outstanding. Safe, Effective and Well-led were Good. Inspectors found kind staff, personalised care, good healthcare support, safe medicines management and a wide range of activities.
There were some record-keeping issues. Two nutrition screening records had been scored incorrectly, one person's risk assessment was missing, and some fluid charts did not show the recommended amount. These matters were corrected or managed during the inspection, and inspectors said no harm had occurred.
The overall rating was unchanged from the previous inspection. Caring and Responsive remained Outstanding, while Well-led changed from Outstanding to Good.
Kind and personal care
Staff built meaningful relationships with people and took time to listen. They adapted support to personal interests, routines and preferences.
“The staff are so caring, they are the best, they spend time with me and really listen, not just nod and agree, they actually listen and know me.” from the report
Highly personalised support
Care plans reflected people's histories, needs, communication styles, cultural requirements and wishes. Staff made practical changes to support individual choices.
“People received personalised care and support specific to their needs and preferences.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to keep important relationships, visit meaningful places and take part in activities linked to their interests and culture.
“Staff provided people with meaningful and creative activities daily.” from the report
Good healthcare support
The home worked well with doctors and other health professionals. People were supported to access healthcare when their needs changed.
“The service continued to maintain good working relationships with health services across the area, a doctor visited the service weekly” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Inspectors found that medicines were administered as prescribed and records were accurately signed. Staff had appropriate medicines training.
“Medicines were managed safely, medicines were administered as prescribed.” from the report
Incorrect nutrition records
minorTwo MUST nutrition screening records had been scored incorrectly. The records were corrected immediately and inspectors found no harm had occurred.
“However, two records had incorrectly scored MUST records. These records were rectified immediately, and no harm occurred.” from the report
One missing risk assessment
needs fixingOne person who could not use a call bell did not have a risk assessment explaining how staff should keep them safe. This was completed during the inspection.
“There was no risk assessment in place to identify what strategies were required to keep them safe.” from the report
Occasional call bell delays
needs fixingSome people said they sometimes waited for a response when staff were very busy. Most people said call bells were usually answered within a few minutes.
“Some people told us they occasionally had to wait for a response to their call bells when staff were extremely busy” from the report
Incomplete fluid charts
minorSome fluid charts did not record the recommended fluid amount. The manager checked these daily and communicated actions to staff, so inspectors said people were not at risk.
“However, not all fluid charts had the recommended fluid amount.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure nutrition screening scores are calculated correctly and checked after any changes?
- 02How will you monitor people who cannot use a call bell, and how often will staff check them?
- 03How quickly are call bells normally answered when staff are busy, and how do you monitor delays?
- 04How do you record recommended fluid amounts and check that people are drinking enough?
- 05Why did the Well-led rating change from Outstanding to Good since the previous inspection?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and both the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 2019 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 Burlington Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Outstanding rating throughout.
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Outstandingstayed OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- April 2017OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- February 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 February 2016.
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 West Northamptonshire
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 £1,280 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
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.