CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cotman House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks such as falls, choking and pressure ulcers were assessed, medicines were monitored, and infection control arrangements were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Inspectors did observe positive and caring interactions between staff and people.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had systems for monitoring quality, acting on shortfalls, seeking feedback and keeping relatives informed.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring care and effective management, but staff vacancies and limited family visits should be discussed.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 7 March 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at Safe and Well-led. They spoke with people, a relative, staff and a commissioner. They reviewed care and medicines records, audits and feedback, and observed medicines being given and staff interactions.
The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found systems to protect people from abuse, manage risks, learn from incidents and give medicines safely. Infection control arrangements and visiting arrangements were also checked.
There were staff vacancies, but the home was using agency staff, recruiting and checking call bell response times. Inspectors found that people were receiving the care they needed. The inspection did not examine the circumstances of a death following a specific incident because that incident was still under investigation.
Safety systems
Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report concerns. The home reviewed incidents and used the findings to reduce future risks.
“Where safeguarding incidents had happened, the registered manager had systems in place to reduce similar happening again in the future.” from the report
Medicines
Staff were trained and checked as competent. Inspectors observed medicines being given safely, and records showed when people received them.
“Records showed when medicines were given to people and they were signed to show people received their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Caring relationships
Inspectors saw positive interactions between staff and people. Feedback from relatives also described respectful and compassionate care.
“During our inspection we observed positive and caring interactions between staff and people using the service.” from the report
Staff vacancies
needs fixingThere were vacancies, so the home relied partly on agency staff, recruitment and existing staff covering shifts. Inspectors found action was being taken, but families should check whether staffing remains tight.
“At this inspection we found there were staff vacancies, however, the provider was taking reasonable action to reduce the impact on the care provided.” from the report
Family visit frequency
minorRelatives could visit, but one relative said the frequency of family visits had been limited. Ask what the current visiting arrangements are and how they are reviewed.
“I have never not been able to visit but the frequency of our family visits has been limited.” from the report
Extra risk information
minorInspectors found that some additional information would strengthen guidance for staff in risk assessments and care plans. This was corrected immediately during the inspection.
“We did identify additional information which would strengthen the information provided to staff, this was addressed immediately by the deputy manager.” from the report
- 01How many permanent care staff vacancies are there now, and how often are agency staff used?
- 02How do you check that staffing levels and agency use do not affect response times or continuity of care?
- 03What are the current visiting arrangements, and how are decisions about visits made with each person?
- 04How do you make sure risk assessments and care plans contain all the information staff need?
- 05What rating did the home have for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, with infection control also checked; the other three key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 April 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, January 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safer, more personalised care and better management than at the previous inspection.
This was a focused inspection on 16 December 2020. It followed concerns about medicines, care and staffing, and checked whether improvements promised after the previous inspection had been made. Inspectors visited the home, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care records, medicines, staffing and management records.
Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm. Medicines were managed safely, staffing was checked against people's needs, and infection control arrangements were in place. Care records gave staff better guidance about people's individual needs, choices and end of life wishes.
The home had activities to help reduce boredom and isolation. Complaints were investigated and used to improve the service. The manager and provider used audits and feedback to identify and address problems.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were each rated Good. Caring and Effective were not inspected during this visit, so earlier ratings for those areas were used when calculating the overall rating. The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, with two breaches, but the home was no longer in breach at this inspection.
Better risk management
Care records and monitoring had improved since the previous inspection. They gave staff clearer guidance about risks such as falls, nutrition and pressure ulcers.
“People's care records guided staff in how the risks in people's daily lives were reduced.” from the report
Safe medicines and infection control
Inspectors saw medicines being given safely and found trained staff, checks and audits in place. They were also assured about the home's infection prevention and control arrangements.
“Records showed people received their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered group and individual activities and helped people stay in contact with important relatives during the pandemic.
“There was a programme of group and individual activity and interaction that people could participate in to reduce the risks of boredom and isolation.” from the report
Active quality monitoring
The manager and provider used audits, feedback and incident reviews to find shortfalls and make improvements.
“The quality monitoring systems in place supported the registered manager and provider to identify and address shortfalls in a timely way.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and review my relative's specific risks, such as falls, pressure ulcers, nutrition or hydration?
- 02How will you make sure my relative receives medicines at the right time, and how are any missed or late doses reviewed?
- 03What activities and support to maintain family contact would be suitable for my relative?
- 04How will you record and follow my relative's communication preferences and end of life decisions?
- 05What was the outcome of the previous inspection's action plan, and how are you checking that the improvements continue?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led only; Caring and Effective were not inspected and earlier ratings for those areas were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 January 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.
Every inspection of Cotman House
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2021Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 December 2015.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.