CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Court View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, with enough staff, safe medicines systems and appropriate safeguarding. However, risk assessments, an evacuation plan and some fire door checks had been missed, and were corrected during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open culture, regular feedback and quality monitoring systems. Some checks did not identify missed fire door checks, but the oversight was dealt with immediately.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Court View is rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred support, but some risk and fire safety checks had been missed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 March 2023. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, observed care, and checked care, medicine, training and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Well-led remained Good. People had choice and control, staff knew them well, and there were enough trained staff.
Inspectors found two safety shortfalls. A recent admission did not yet have all the required risk assessments and an evacuation plan. Some fire door checks had not been completed since September 2022. The manager acted during the inspection to put these right.
Only Safe and Well-led were inspected. The other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection, and the overall Good rating continued.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices and stay as independent as possible, both at home and in the community.
“People and relatives told us they had choice, control, and independence to carry out activities within the home and in the community.” from the report
Staffing and skills
There were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed, and staff had training relevant to people's needs.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had undertaken the necessary training and skills to carry out their role effectively.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were given as prescribed. Records were complete, staff were trained, and regular audits checked medicines were handled safely.
“People received their medicines as prescribed. Medicine Administration Records (MARs) were fully completed.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff could give feedback through meetings, surveys and other discussions. The home worked with health and social care professionals.
“There was an open culture, where people, relatives and professionals worked together to achieve good outcomes for people.” from the report
Risk assessments for a recent admission
needs fixingA person who moved in during December 2022 did not initially have the required risk assessments or a personal emergency evacuation plan. The manager put these in place during the inspection.
“Risk assessments were not in place for a person that had moved to the service in December 2022.” from the report
Missed fire door checks
needs fixingWeekly fire door checks had not been completed since September 2022. The home took action during the inspection to bring the checks up to date.
“These checks did not always pick up discrepancies such as weekly fire door checks had been missed since September; the service took immediate action to remedy the oversight.” from the report
- 01Are every person's risk assessments and personal emergency evacuation plan completed and reviewed before they move in?
- 02How are weekly fire door checks recorded and checked now, so that none are missed?
- 03How do you make sure staffing levels change when a person's needs change?
- 04How are people involved in decisions about activities, independence and community visits?
- 05What actions from the inspection have been completed, and how are they being checked by managers?
This was an unannounced inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 April 2023 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 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but safety checks and some staffing records needed improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 6 December 2017. They spoke with people living at the home, a relative and staff. They reviewed care files, training and recruitment records, medicines records and safety records.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in November 2016. Medicines management and record keeping had improved. People received kind, personalised care and were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe. Some safety checks were missed, hazardous cleaning materials were not always locked away, and the inspectors could not confirm that all recruitment checks had been completed. The other four areas were rated Good.
Medicines improved
The home had acted on the previous inspection's concerns. Medicines were securely stored, staff were trained and administration records were completed thoroughly.
“The medicine administration records had been completed thoroughly.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw friendly, calm and sensitive interactions. Staff knew people well and respected their dignity, privacy and personal preferences.
“Staff were kind and caring and gave person-centred care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people's communication, routines, interests and goals. Staff supported people to make choices, build independence and take part in activities.
“The service provided was person centred.” from the report
Good leadership
The management was described as open and approachable. Staff were encouraged to raise concerns and the home used audits to identify improvements.
“We found the registered manager and management team were open and transparent.” from the report
Missed safety checks
needs fixingSome basic checks were not up to date. These included water temperatures, some electrical testing and general health and safety checks.
“Not all the equipment used by the service had been safety checked.” from the report
Cleaning materials not secured
seriousA cupboard containing hazardous substances in the shower room was unlocked. This created a safety concern.
“We found the cupboard in the shower room which stored hazardous substances, unlocked.” from the report
Recruitment evidence incomplete
needs fixingInspectors could not see the recruitment files because they were held at the organisation's headquarters. The information available did not confirm that all required checks had been completed.
“Not all pre-employment checks were satisfactorily provided to the registered manager to help ensure suitable staff were employed.” from the report
Lone-working risks
needs fixingThere were enough staff for people's assessed needs, but the risks of having one staff member working alone had not been fully assessed. The manager said the policy was reviewed after the inspection.
“There was little evidence that all the potential risks and the actions required to minimise the risk had been assessed.” from the report
Some training outstanding
minorSome staff were not up to date with first aid or moving and handling training, and staff had not completed equality and diversity training required by the provider's policy.
“However, the staff had not had been trained in equality and diversity as required by the provider's policy on equality and diversity.” from the report
- 01Have all the missed safety checks, including water temperatures, electrical testing and general health and safety checks, now been completed?
- 02How are hazardous cleaning materials kept locked and checked?
- 03What recruitment checks are now held for every staff member, including identity, employment gaps and criminal record information?
- 04How is lone working assessed and managed when only one staff member is in the home?
- 05Have all staff completed the outstanding first aid, moving and handling, and equality and diversity training?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole service, covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating, with three people living at the home at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 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 Court View
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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 South 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 £1,020 to £1,280 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 11 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.