CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Castlemead Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was using safe infection prevention and control procedures. They checked admissions, visitors, PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing and outbreak planning.
- Effective?
- Good
- This inspection did not assess or rate this question.
- Caring?
- Good
- This inspection did not assess or rate this question.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This inspection did not assess or rate this question.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This inspection did not assess or rate this question.
What inspectors found, October 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control.
Inspectors visited the home on 21 October 2020. The visit was announced and focused on infection prevention and control because the home was being used for people discharged from hospital with Covid-19.
Inspectors found a separate unit for people admitted with Covid-19. Staff and equipment were kept separate from other areas. The home also had extra cleaning, visitor safety checks, regular testing and plans for managing outbreaks.
The home was rated “Inspected but not rated”. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated judgement for safe care. Inspectors said they were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being followed.
Separate Covid-19 area
The home had a dedicated unit for people admitted with Covid-19. It had separate access, staff and equipment to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“The service had developed a dedicated unit of en-suite rooms to care safely for people who were admitted to the service with Covid-19.” from the report
Safe visiting arrangements
Indoor visits had restarted with booking, health checks, visitor agreements and PPE.
“This included a booking system, risk questionnaire, visitor agreement, temperature check and the use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Cleaning and outbreak planning
Enhanced cleaning was in place, including cleaning frequently touched areas. The home also had plans for social bubbles and separate zones during an outbreak.
“Enhanced cleaning schedules including regular cleaning of touch areas such as handrails and door handles were in place.” from the report
Testing and staff arrangements
People and staff had regular Covid-19 testing. Staff did not work in other care settings, and staff practice was organised to reduce infection spread between floors.
“Staff employed by the service did not work in any other care setting.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are people admitted after hospital discharge now, and is there still a separate area for people with Covid-19?
- 02Do staff still work on only one floor or unit, and do any staff work in other care settings?
- 03What arrangements are currently in place for indoor visits, including testing, PPE and visitor checks?
- 04How often are people and staff tested, and what happens after a positive result?
- 05What plans are in place if there is an infection outbreak, particularly for people who find it difficult to stay in their rooms?
This was an announced, focused inspection of infection prevention and control; it did not give ratings or findings for the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 October 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, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found sustained improvements and kind, safe care, but care plan records were not always consistent.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 8 and 10 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, complaints, incidents, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, good infection control and effective links with health professionals.
People were described as receiving kind and person-centred care. Staff knew people's needs and supported their choices, privacy, dignity and interests. Activities were varied, although some people and relatives wanted more activities.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published on 26 February 2019. Inspectors found some gaps and conflicting information in care plans, but staff knew people's current needs and the manager corrected the issues during the inspection.
Sustained improvement
The home had improved from Requires Improvement to Good in Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found that the action plan had been put into practice and followed through.
“The management team and staff had made a range of sustained improvements since the last inspection.” from the report
Staffing and safety
Inspectors found consistently enough staff to meet people's care needs. Medicines, recruitment, infection control and safeguarding arrangements were also found to be safe.
“There were enough staff deployed to provide people with appropriate levels of care and keep people safe throughout the day and night.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated as individuals and staff understood their choices and preferences. Inspectors saw staff protect privacy and dignity and ask for consent before providing care.
“People received support from kind and compassionate staff who knew them well.” from the report
Good partnership working
Staff worked proactively with GPs, specialist nurses, speech and language therapists and other health professionals to support people's health.
“We work as a team and have a brilliant working relationship.” from the report
Open leadership
The management team used audits, feedback, complaints and incidents to make changes. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to share their views.
“The management team continually monitored the quality of the service, identifying issues and making changes to improve care and outcomes.” from the report
Care plan inconsistencies
needs fixingSome care plans contained gaps or conflicting information, including different information about whether a person was at risk of falls. The manager corrected the issues during the inspection, and inspectors found no negative impact on care, but they made a recommendation about care planning.
“Some people had a high number of care plans and we found some gaps and inconsistencies in the information within them.” from the report
More activities requested
minorSome people and relatives said they would like more activities. Others were satisfied, and inspectors found the activities offered were varied and suited to people's needs and abilities.
“Some people and relatives suggested there could be more activities available and others were satisfied with the programme in place.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure care plans stay accurate when a person's needs or risks change?
- 02How will you record and monitor risks such as falls across all of my relative's care plans?
- 03What activities are available, and how will you support my relative's own interests and preferences?
- 04How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing the care plan?
- 05How can we raise a concern or complaint, and how will you tell us what action has been taken?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions; the previous rating was Requires Improvement, published on 26 February 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 February 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 Castlemead Court Care Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 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 Milton Keynes
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. 90 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“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.