CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cotswold Cottage
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The inspection found strong infection-control arrangements, but inspectors were only somewhat assured about the safe use of masks and the cleanliness and condition of some areas.
- Effective?
- Good
- Not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 precautions but some problems with masks and cleanliness.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 10 May 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than carrying out a full inspection of the home.
Inspectors found many safeguards in place. These included visitor testing and temperature checks, regular testing, vaccination, extra cleaning, available protective equipment, staff training and support for family visits. No positive COVID-19 cases had occurred during the pandemic.
Inspectors were not fully assured that masks were always worn correctly or that every area was clean and suitable for cleaning. A laundry sink needed cleaning, disposable hand-drying towels were missing, and some bathroom surfaces and flooring needed attention.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not provide a full overall quality rating or ratings for the five care questions.
Visitor safety
Visitors were temperature-checked, tested or asked for test evidence, required to wash their hands and asked to wear masks.
“On arrival at the home, staff checked the temperature of visitors and sprayed disinfectant on the soles of their footwear.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
The home carried out regular testing and everyone living there had been fully vaccinated. There had been no positive COVID-19 cases during the pandemic.
“Regular testing was carried out for staff and people who use the service. Everyone using the service had been fully vaccinated.” from the report
Continuity of staff
People were supported by a consistent staff group, and agency workers were not used to cover the home.
“People had been supported by a consistent group of staff. No agency workers had been used to cover the home, reducing the potential for cross-infection.” from the report
Family contact
Staff helped people keep in touch with their families and supported face-to-face visits.
“Staff had supported people to keep in contact with their families and facilitated face to face visits.” from the report
Masks were not always worn correctly
needs fixingOne staff member wore a mask under their chin, and another person's mask slipped down and exposed their nose. Inspectors were only somewhat assured that protective equipment was being used safely.
“However, we found one member of staff wearing their face mask under their chin whilst in a bedroom.” from the report
Some areas needed cleaning or repair
needs fixingThe laundry sink needed cleaning and there were no disposable towels. Some bathroom tiles and flooring also needed attention, and the planned refurbishment had been postponed.
“However, the sink in the laundry needed cleaning and there were no disposable towels in there for staff to use after they had washed their hands.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to make sure every staff member wears a face mask correctly?
- 02How do you check that masks fit properly and are used safely in bedrooms?
- 03Has the laundry sink been cleaned and are disposable hand-drying towels now available?
- 04Have the damaged bathroom tiles and flooring been repaired?
- 05When will the postponed bathroom refurbishment take place?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not provide a full assessment or ratings for the other care questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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, April 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with the Safe rating improved from Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 and 8 March 2018. One inspector spoke with the manager and staff, reviewed care and medicines records, and contacted healthcare professionals and relatives. The inspector also observed care because some people could not describe their experiences.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. The Safe rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. The other four ratings remained Good.
Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines practice, detailed care plans and good support with health and nutrition. They saw kind and respectful care, support for independence and community activities, and systems for checking and improving the service.
Safe staffing and recruitment
Staffing levels had increased since the previous inspection, and inspectors saw enough staff to meet people's needs and support community activities. Recruitment checks were complete.
“Staffing levels had increased since the last inspection. We observed there were enough staff to support people and to access the community.” from the report
Health and nutrition
The home followed advice from healthcare professionals and managed complex nutritional needs, including tube feeding, with suitable records and specialist support.
“From what I have observed and heard from the staff, they manage and cope well with complex patients such as tube fed patients” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, protected their privacy and dignity, and supported them to be as independent as possible.
“We saw staff were respectful towards people and treated them with dignity.” from the report
Person-centred support
Care plans covered people's individual needs and preferences. People were supported to attend day services, go shopping, eat out and keep in touch with others.
“People's choices and individuality were respected. This included hairstyles, colour of hair dye and clothing.” from the report
Monitoring and improvement
The provider used audits and senior management visits to check care. The five most recent audits showed an average compliance score of 96%.
“These showed the home was performing well, with an average score of 96% compliance for the five most recent audits.” from the report
Visitor welcome and seating
minorOne relative said visitors were not always made welcome and that there was nowhere suitable to sit. This was a minor concern raised during an otherwise positive caring assessment.
“There is nowhere to sit. Not all visitors are able to carry chairs from the kitchen and they can't sit on bean bags.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make visitors feel welcome and provide suitable seating?
- 02Are staffing levels still high enough at busy times, such as when people leave for day services?
- 03How are people's tube feeding, nutrition and healthcare instructions recorded and checked?
- 04How are communication tools, including pictures, used for people who cannot easily understand spoken information?
- 05What changes have been made since the March 2018 inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; Safe improved from Requires Improvement and the other four ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 April 2018 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 Cotswold Cottage
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of Buckinghamshire
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 £1,300 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 13 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.