CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Charing Court Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were identified and reviewed, medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient and infection control arrangements were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating, but that rating is not stated in this report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating, but that rating is not stated in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating, but that rating is not stated in this report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found that management systems had improved, incidents were recorded and reviewed, and regular audits were being used to monitor quality and safety.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and effective management, with improvement since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 22 June 2021. Two inspectors spoke with three people, one relative, six staff members and a healthcare professional. They reviewed care and medicines records, accident reports, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were given as prescribed, staffing levels were safe and infection control measures were in place. Care plans were up to date and staff knew people well.
This inspection followed a previous breach about governance and missed incident reporting. The home had introduced a new reporting process and regular audits. Inspectors found the breach had been resolved. The overall rating changed from Requires Improvement to Good, but other areas were not assessed during this visit.
Up-to-date care plans
Care plans were accessible and reflected how people wanted to be supported. Risk guidance was updated after incidents and followed by staff.
“Care plans were up-to date and accessible. This enabled staff to safely support people and understand how people wished to be supported.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were given at the correct time and as prescribed. Records and stock checks were accurate.
“Medicines were being administered at the correct time and as prescribed.” from the report
Enough staff
The home used a dependency tool to assess staffing needs. Inspectors saw enough staff supporting people, with call bells answered quickly.
“There was enough staff to meet people's needs. The service used a dependency tool to assess staffing needs” from the report
Improved management systems
The home introduced a new accident and incident reporting process and regular audits. Inspectors found the previous governance breach had been resolved.
“The governance of the service was effective and robust. This was evidenced by the improvements the service had made since the last inspection to address issues and no longer be in breach of regulation.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not assessed during this inspection?
- 02How do you now make sure every accident and incident is recorded, reviewed and acted on?
- 03How would you respond if my relative's risks or care needs changed?
- 04How do you check that medicines continue to be given correctly and that records remain accurate?
- 05How will relatives be kept informed about accidents, incidents, changes in care and visiting arrangements?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not assessed and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 July 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.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but some incidents were not recorded and oversight was not effective.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment files, training records, accidents and incidents, and management systems.
People were generally positive about the care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, a clean and well-maintained home, kind staff, personalised care plans and good support with food, health needs, activities and complaints.
The main problem was that staff did not always record incidents. This meant risks might not be reviewed properly to prevent something happening again. The quality checks in place had not identified this problem.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were Requires Improvement, while Effective, Caring and Responsive were Good. This was the fourth consecutive Requires Improvement rating.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them in a warm, person-centred way. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity and respect.
“Staff were attentive and engaged well with the people they supported, they treated them with warmth, compassion and kindness.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans contained detailed information about people's routines, preferences, communication and health needs. Inspectors saw staff following these plans.
“Each person had a plan of care . These reflected the care given and provided detailed information such as peoples personal care routines and how they liked to be supported” from the report
Safe medicines
Only trained staff administered medicines. Storage, records, ordering and disposal were checked and found to be appropriate.
“Arrangements for ordering, receiving, and disposal of medicines were appropriate. Medicine stock was kept to a minimum and easily checked.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to support people's personal routines and activities. Recruitment checks had improved since the previous inspection.
“There were enough care staff to ensure people were assisted in a timely way to receive the support with their everyday personal routines and activities.” from the report
Improvements since the last inspection
The home had resolved the previous recruitment breach and introduced a tool to help calculate staffing needs. Effective and Responsive improved to Good.
“At this inspection, enough improvement had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of Regulation 19.” from the report
Incidents were not always recorded
seriousStaff did not always use the incident reporting process. This meant the registered manager might not review risks or identify ways to prevent similar incidents happening again.
“However, although no one had come to harm there was some evidence of under reporting by staff that posed a potential risk.” from the report
Quality checks missed the problem
seriousThe home's audits covered many areas but did not identify that some incidents were missing from the records. This was a breach of Regulation 17.
“Monitoring systems had not been effective, in highlighting that not all incidents occurring in the service to people were reported by staff.” from the report
End of life plans needed more detail
needs fixingSome end of life information had been recorded, but it did not give a full, personal picture of people's wishes.
“However, the present information was very basic and lacked personalisation.” from the report
Some health guidance needed strengthening
needs fixingCare records for people with diabetes needed more guidance for staff, including what to do when blood glucose levels were outside the normal range.
“However, records for those with diabetes would benefit from some additional guidance for staff to ensure support was managed consistently and safely.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every accident, incident or allegation is recorded and reviewed?
- 02What changes have you made to your quality checks since the breach of Regulation 17?
- 03How are people's end of life wishes recorded and kept personalised?
- 04What extra guidance do staff now have for supporting people when their blood glucose levels are outside the normal range?
- 05How do you check that all staff have completed required training and fire drills?
This was an unannounced planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 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 Charing Court Residential Home
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Charing Court Residential Home →
- December 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Charing Court Residential Home →
- November 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.