CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Cotswold House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management and clear risk assessments. The home had arrangements for safeguarding, infection control, accidents and emergencies.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare. Inspectors found that the home had improved its approach to consent and the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Inspectors saw staff supporting people's choices, privacy, dignity and religious beliefs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's preferences, routines and communication needs. People were supported with activities, relationships, complaints and individual end of life plans.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive culture, supportive management and regular quality checks. Feedback from people, relatives, staff and professionals was used to improve the home.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with clear improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 19 and 24 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with six people, five relatives, seven staff and three visiting professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable risk assessments, trained staff and good access to health professionals.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans described people's routines, choices and preferences. Activities, food and support at the end of life were planned around individual needs.
The previous inspection was rated Requires Improvement, with breaches of Regulations 9, 11 and 17. This inspection found that improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors observed staff being supportive, kind and caring, while maintaining privacy and dignity.
“We observed staff interacting with people and found they were supportive, kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, preferred routines and communication needs. Staff understood how people wanted to be supported.
“Care plans were person centred. They included clear information for staff on people's likes, dislikes and preferred routines.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
There were enough staff to respond promptly to requests. Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely, with regular checks.
“Medication administration records (MAR) were accurately completed and showed people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Improved management
The home had strengthened its quality checks and acted when problems were found. Inspectors found improvements since the previous inspection.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have you maintained the improvements made after the previous Requires Improvement inspection?
- 02How will you assess and manage my relative's specific risks, such as falls, choking, pressure ulcers or moving and handling?
- 03How will you involve my relative and our family in developing and reviewing their care plan?
- 04What activities would be suitable if my relative cannot use the communal areas?
- 05How would you support my relative's wishes and preferences if they needed end of life care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that considered the home and care provided across all five CQC key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 July 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.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff but concerns with safety, effectiveness, responsiveness, and leadership.
Inspectors visited Cotswold House Care Home unannounced on 4 and 10 July 2018. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff, and health professionals. They checked care records, medicines, and the environment.
People said they felt safe and cared for by kind staff. However, risk assessments were not always up to date, and medicine records were sometimes inaccurate. Staff had training but did not always understand how to support people who could not make decisions for themselves.
Care plans were not always reviewed regularly or personalised, especially for people receiving end of life care. The new manager had started improvements but some systems to check quality and safety were not yet effective.
The service had no registered manager at the time but a new manager was in place and applying to register. People, relatives, and staff spoke positively about the manager and the culture of the home.
Kind and caring staff
People and relatives said staff were kind and treated them with respect.
“Staff are more than kind, they go out of their way to do everything to suit me.” from the report
Positive leadership
The manager was seen as approachable and supportive by staff and relatives.
“The manager is always around and helps us in our daily role.” from the report
Clean and well-maintained environment
The home was clean, well decorated and accessible for people with mobility needs.
“The building and gardens were well decorated and maintained to a good standard.” from the report
Outdated risk assessments
needs fixingRisk assessments were not always reviewed or updated, which could lead to unsafe care.
“The person's turn regime had been changed due to improvements in their skin condition but the risk assessment had not been updated.” from the report
Inaccurate medicine records
seriousMedicine stock levels were not always recorded correctly, increasing the risk of errors.
“The medicine stock recorded on people's MAR did not correspond with the stock available.” from the report
Poor understanding of Mental Capacity Act
seriousStaff did not always understand how to assess capacity or seek consent properly.
“Staff we spoke with had limited knowledge of the MCA and their responsibilities in relation to Act.” from the report
- 01How do you keep risk assessments up to date and make sure all staff know about changes?
- 02What training do staff have about the Mental Capacity Act and how do you check they understand it?
- 03How often are care plans reviewed and updated, especially for people receiving end of life care?
- 04How do you ensure medicine records are accurate and prevent errors?
- 05What systems do you have to check the quality and safety of care and act on any problems?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 August 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 House Care Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: 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.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 December 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.