CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Charlton Court Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found generally good infection-control arrangements, but some staff did not wear masks correctly.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 12 January 2022. It was carried out because of a COVID-19 outbreak and looked mainly at infection prevention and control, as well as staffing pressures.
Inspectors found the home was clean and tidy. There were arrangements for testing people and staff, safe admissions, visiting, outbreak management and COVID-19 vaccination checks. The infection-control policy was up to date.
Most staff wore masks correctly and PPE supplies were available. However, some staff were seen wearing masks incorrectly. This was raised during the inspection and the provider was signposted to resources to improve its approach.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a rated judgement for the five areas of care.
Clean environment
The home was clean and tidy, and cleaning records were completed.
“The home was clean, tidy and cleaning records had been completed.” from the report
Testing arrangements
The home had arrangements to test people and staff for COVID-19 and was following government guidance.
“The provider had appropriate arrangements to test people and staff for COVID- 19 and was following government guidance on testing.” from the report
Safe admissions
People joining the home were supported in line with government guidance for new admissions during the pandemic.
“People admitted to the service were supported following government guidelines on managing new admissions during the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Up-to-date policy
The home’s infection prevention and control policy was current and matched the guidance in place at the time.
“The home's infection prevention and control policy was up to date and in line with current guidance.” from the report
Masks not always worn correctly
minorInspectors saw some staff wearing masks incorrectly. This was raised during the inspection and the provider was signposted to resources to improve its approach.
“however we observed some staff not wearing their mask correctly.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure every staff member wears PPE correctly?
- 02How do managers check that staff follow infection-control procedures throughout each shift?
- 03How would you manage visitors and new admissions if there were another COVID-19 outbreak?
- 04How often are people and staff tested, and how are positive results managed?
- 05How do you check that staff and visiting professionals meet the COVID-19 vaccination requirements?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection triggered by a COVID-19 outbreak, focused on infection prevention and control and staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 February 2022 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 safe, kind and personalised care, with a few records needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. Inspectors spoke with 10 people, seven relatives and seven staff. They reviewed care and medicines records, staff files and management checks. They also observed care and checked the building.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable care plans and kind relationships. People had activities, enough food and drink, and support to make choices and maintain their independence.
The report noted some minor recordkeeping issues. Times for time-specific medicines were not documented clearly at first, but this was corrected on the inspection day. Some health-related training was not shown on the training matrix, although inspectors saw evidence it had been completed. The rating was unchanged from the previous inspection in May 2018.
Safe staffing and risk management
Inspectors found staffing was appropriate and saw people supported promptly. Staff understood safeguarding, fire procedures and how to manage risks.
“People told us they felt safe and risks to people's health and safety were managed well by the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff built warm relationships with people and respected their privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion by staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans contained detailed information about people's needs, routines, histories, interests and wishes. Staff said they knew people well.
“The care plan documentation was detailed and showed staff had got to know people's needs very well.” from the report
Activities and involvement
People had varied activities and were encouraged to keep relationships and interests. Relatives were involved and felt able to share their views.
“People had access to a good varied range of activities and told us they enjoyed these.” from the report
Medicine timing records
needs fixingInspectors asked about recording the times of time-specific medicines. The issue was addressed on the same day, but families should ask how this is checked now.
“We spoke to the registered manager around documenting times for people with 'time specific medication'. This was addressed on the same day.” from the report
Training records
minorSome training relevant to people's health needs was not listed on the training matrix, although inspectors saw evidence that it had been completed.
“Specific training relevant to people's health needs such as diabetes, catheter care, Parkinson's disease were not on the matrix, however these had been completed.” from the report
Short-notice sickness cover
needs fixingRotas showed that cover was not always provided when sickness was reported at short notice. Staff said they worked harder and shared the workload at those times.
“Rotas showed sickness was not always provided when reported last minute.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and check the times for time-specific medicines?
- 02How do you cover staff sickness when it is reported at short notice?
- 03How do you make sure the training matrix includes health-related training such as diabetes, catheter care and Parkinson's disease?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing the care plan?
- 05How do you make sure activities are suited to each person's interests, mood and abilities?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the home, care and all five CQC questions; all five ratings were given. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 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 Charlton Court Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 August 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leeds
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 £1,250 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.