CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Carl Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were supported by enough staff, and recruitment, safeguarding, emergency and equipment checks were in place. Some risk assessments were not updated when circumstances changed, and protocols for some as-required or variable-dose medicines were not always in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training, supervision and induction. People received suitable food and support with health appointments, and inspectors found the home was working within the Mental Capacity Act. The home was clean and maintained, although a low fence around the fish pond was kept under review.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's preferences, gave them time and supported choice, independence, privacy and contact with visitors.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People received personalised support and their communication needs were met. Some care plans needed more person-centred detail, and some people wanted more organised activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The providers were described as approachable and knowledgeable, with a welcoming atmosphere and positive feedback from people, relatives, staff and health professionals. Some management processes, including care plan audits and wider reviews of incidents, needed strengthening.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but some risk records, care plans and management checks needed strengthening.
Inspectors visited on 8 and 9 January 2019. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff, providers and health professionals. They looked at five care records, staff records, management records, the building and people's bedrooms.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives were very positive about the care. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicine storage, clean surroundings and good support with food, health care and personal needs.
The report also identifies areas to improve. Some risk assessments were not updated after people's needs changed. Some care plans did not give enough detail about people's preferences. Management audits needed strengthening. Inspectors made recommendations, but found no serious risks or concerns and no breaches of regulations.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and staff gave them time and attention. Inspectors saw friendly, considerate relationships between staff and people.
“We observed that staff responded to people in a caring manner and people were comfortable in staff presence.” from the report
Enough trained staff
The home had enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had recruitment checks, induction, training and supervision.
“There were enough staff employed to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Health and nutrition support
People had choices about food and drinks, with specialist diets provided when needed. Staff supported people to see health professionals and followed their advice.
“People had support to access professional medical advice and treatment and attend routine medical appointments.” from the report
Welcoming leadership
The providers were accessible and knew the people living in the home well. People, relatives and staff said the home was well led.
“The providers played a crucial leadership role in the home and there was a positive and welcoming atmosphere.” from the report
Risk records not always updated
needs fixingSome risk assessments were not updated when people's circumstances changed. This included one person's falls assessment after a fall, which could mean staff missed information needed to reduce further risk.
“However, some risk assessments had not been up dated as they should when things changed.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not explain clearly enough how people wanted support to be given. Inspectors said this could affect whether care matched people's preferences.
“Some would benefit from further person-centred information.” from the report
Management checks needed strengthening
needs fixingCare plan audits were not up to date, and wider checks for patterns in accidents and incidents had not previously been carried out. A monthly audit was introduced during the inspection.
“We recommend the provider reviews their governance systems to ensures they remain effective and embedded in their practice.” from the report
Limited organised activities for some people
minorPeople had mixed views about activities. Some wanted more to do, and inspectors did not see an organised activity taking place during the inspection.
“We did not see any organised activities taking place.” from the report
Some medicine protocols missing
needs fixingProtocols were not always in place for some as-required or variable-dose medicines. The provider said this would be corrected immediately.
“Protocols were not always in place.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure every risk assessment is updated promptly after a fall or other change in someone's needs?
- 02How do you make sure care plans explain each person's preferences for personal care in enough detail?
- 03Have the missing protocols for as-required and variable-dose medicines now been completed?
- 04How often are care plan audits and accident and incident reviews carried out now?
- 05What organised activities are available for people who would like more to do?
This was a planned inspection of all five CQC questions, with the first day unannounced; the home had 14 residents and inspectors reviewed five care records. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 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 Carl Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 January 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
21 live-in carers within about an hour of Torbay
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 £1,400 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.