Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Davers Court

Goodpublished 17 November 2022, 3 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff to keep people safe, but the home relied heavily on agency staff, and inspectors recommended continued monitoring of staffing levels.
Effective?
Good
People's needs were assessed and care plans gave detailed guidance. Staff supported people with food, drink and health care, although some people outside the dining room needed more encouragement to eat and more dementia training was planned.
Caring?
Good
People described staff as kind and compassionate. Staff respected privacy and dignity, supported independence and involved people and relatives in care decisions.
Responsive?
Good
Care was generally tailored to people's needs and preferences. People had access to activities, social opportunities and support to keep in touch with family and friends.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
Leadership and management oversight were inconsistent. Staffing shortages, agency staff, limited night audits and reduced management visibility had not been fully addressed through the quality monitoring systems.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, November 2022

Davers Court was rated Good overall, but inspectors found leadership and staffing oversight needed improvement.

Inspectors visited without notice on three dates. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.

The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe, safe medicine systems, detailed care plans, kind care and a good range of activities.

The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Heavy use of agency staff affected consistency, staff morale was low, and management checks had not fully considered the effect of agency staffing on care.

The overall rating fell from Outstanding at the previous inspection, published on 27 March 2020, to Good. The report says the service would continue to be monitored.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful care

    People and relatives spoke positively about the permanent care staff. Inspectors saw staff explaining what they were doing and respecting people's privacy.

    “Staff spoke to people in a kind and respectful way, we observed that they knocked on people's door before entering their bedroom and took their time to explain to people what they were doing.” from the report
  • Personalised care

    Care plans recorded people's needs, wishes, likes and dislikes. People were supported to make choices about their daily lives.

    “Care plans were person-centred way and reflected peoples wishes. They were highly individualised and celebrated people's strengths and characteristics.” from the report
  • Safe medicines

    Medicines were stored and administered through clear systems. Staff training and checks were in place, and the medicines sampled matched the records.

    “We checked a sample of medicines and found that they tallied with the records.” from the report
  • Activities and relationships

    People could take part in organised and spontaneous activities inside the home and in the local community. Staff also helped people stay in contact with loved ones.

    “There was a good range of both spontaneous and organised events.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Reliance on agency staff

    needs fixing

    The home had staffing vacancies and depended on agency staff. This affected consistency because some staff did not know people, their routines or their communication needs well.

    “There was enough staff on duty, but the staff did not always know people well as the service had a high number of staffing vacancies and was dependent on agency staff.” from the report
  • Weaknesses in management oversight

    needs fixing

    Night audits were not regular, and management walk-rounds had become less frequent. The quality systems had not fully considered the wider effect of agency staffing on care.

    “Night audits were not taking place regularly and had not been increased to take account of the services dependency on agency staff.” from the report
  • Agency medicines training

    serious

    Inspectors found errors involving agency staff giving medicines. The arrangements for agency staff using the electronic medicines system were not clear, although the manager strengthened them during the inspection.

    “We saw that there had been errors by agency staff administering medication, but agency staff did not have specific training on the providers medication system.” from the report
  • Support with meals

    needs fixing

    Some people eating outside the dining room needed more support and encouragement. The manager agreed to review this.

    “We observed some people in their bedrooms and in other communal areas who would have benefited from more support and encouragement.” from the report
  • Dementia training

    minor

    Staff said they would benefit from more dementia care training. Most staff had completed only the initial dementia training, and more comprehensive training was planned.

    “The training matrix showed that the majority of staff had only completed initial training on dementia care.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How many permanent staff vacancies are there now, and what progress has been made with recruitment?
  2. 02How do you make sure agency staff know each person's needs, routines and communication style before starting a shift?
  3. 03What training and competency checks must agency staff complete before administering medicines?
  4. 04How often are night audits and management walk-rounds now carried out?
  5. 05What changes have been made to support people who eat in their bedrooms or communal areas?

This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, the care provided and the premises, including infection prevention and control; inspectors also made follow-up telephone calls to relatives and staff. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 November 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, November 2020

Davers Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were working well.

Inspectors visited the home on 29 October 2020. The visit was announced and formed part of a coronavirus-related thematic review of infection prevention and control in care homes.

Inspectors found good practice in helping relatives visit safely, keeping people connected and adapting activities. Staff understood how to use protective equipment, and people were supported with COVID-19 testing.

The home was inspected but not rated overall. The Safe question was also recorded as inspected but not rated. Inspectors said they were assured about the infection prevention and control arrangements they checked.

What inspectors praised
  • Safer visits

    A separate day centre was used for relative visits, giving families more opportunities to visit while keeping visits managed safely.

    “This was being used for relative visits so they could be managed safely and relatives given more opportunities to visit.” from the report
  • Keeping people connected

    The home used social media, live activities and links with another home to help people stay connected with relatives and others.

    “The wellbeing of the people was improved by use of social media for such things as live art demonstrations” from the report
  • Safe use of PPE

    Inspectors found that staff had a good understanding of using protective equipment, and were assured that it was used effectively and safely.

    “We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
  • Support with testing

    Staff helped reassure a person who was anxious about a COVID-19 test by showing how it was done.

    “The person was reassured by this and was then happy to have the test.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How are relative visits currently managed safely?
  2. 02How do you make sure staff use protective equipment effectively and safely?
  3. 03How do people living at the home and staff access testing?
  4. 04What arrangements are in place to prevent or manage an infection outbreak?
  5. 05Which areas of care were not covered by this inspection?

This was a focused thematic review of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, so the service was inspected but not rated overall and the other care questions were not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 November 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Davers Court

6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. November 2022Goodcurrent rating
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Davers Court →

  2. November 2020Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at Davers Court →

  3. March 2020Outstandingup from Good
    Safe: OutstandingEffective: OutstandingCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. August 2017Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. July 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. May 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. June 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. August 2014

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 August 2014.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

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.”
Liz L., about Sithembiso N.
See live-in carers near SuffolkProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.