CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Falmouth Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and inspectors found enough staff to meet assessed needs. Handwritten entries on medicines records were not always signed by two staff as required by the home's policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the required training and support. People's needs, choices, dietary requirements and healthcare needs were assessed and reviewed, and staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well and supported them to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reflected people's routines and preferences. Activities were provided seven days a week, and the home adapted activities and support around people's interests and needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor the home and make improvements. Inspectors noted duplicated care records and a shift handover that was not entirely accurate.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some medicines and record-keeping issues to improve.
This was the first inspection since the home was registered. The visit was unannounced and took place on 21 April 2023. Inspectors reviewed five care plans and risk assessments, staff training and management records. They spoke with people living at the home, staff, relatives and a healthcare professional.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, effective safeguarding, safe medicines support, detailed care plans and respectful care. People had access to activities, outings and support to follow their interests.
The home was not yet full because of recruitment difficulties, especially for senior carers. The management team said it was not admitting more people until the right staff had been recruited. Inspectors also found that some handwritten medicines records were not signed by two staff, some care records duplicated information, and one shift handover was not fully accurate.
Staffing and safety
Inspectors found enough staff on duty to meet people's assessed needs. Staff responded to requests for help and safe recruitment checks were in place.
“There were enough staff employed and on duty to meet people's assessed needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's needs, routines and preferences. Staff adapted support to help people regain skills, enjoy hobbies and make their own choices.
“Care plans were detailed and personalised. People were supported by all the staff teams to experience good outcomes” from the report
Activities and independence
People had a wide range of activities, outings and opportunities to continue interests or learn new skills. The home changed activity times in response to people's views.
“Activities were provided seven days a week, at different times of the day and in different areas of the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found positive relationships between staff and people. People's privacy, dignity, communication needs and independence were respected.
“People were treated with dignity, and their privacy was respected.” from the report
Management oversight
The provider and registered manager used audits, feedback and meetings to monitor the service. Staff, relatives and healthcare professionals reported positive working relationships.
“The provider and registered manager had effective quality monitoring systems in place.” from the report
Handwritten medicines records
needs fixingSome handwritten entries on medicines administration records were not signed by two staff, despite this being required by the home's medicines policy. Inspectors made a recommendation for the home to seek advice and guidance about this process.
“Where staff had entered prescribed medicines by hand on to the Medicine Administration Record (MAR), these entries were not always signed by two staff.” from the report
Duplicated paperwork
needs fixingStaff had several records to complete, with some duplicating the same information. Inspectors noted that time pressures meant not all records were always completed with all the information.
“Many of these records duplicated the same information in different places in the care plan.” from the report
Handover accuracy
minorThe shift handover sheet was not fully accurate on the inspection day because some room moves had not been recorded. This could make it harder for staff to have up-to-date information.
“However, we noted that the handover used for the shift changes on the day of inspection was not entirely accurate.” from the report
Staff vacancies
needs fixingThe home had vacancies and was still recruiting, particularly for senior carers. Managers sometimes covered shifts when a senior was unavailable, although inspectors found staffing levels met people's needs during the visit.
“The service had vacant posts and was recruiting at the time of this inspection.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to ensure handwritten medicines administration records are always signed by two staff?
- 02How many staff vacancies remain, especially for senior carers, and how are shifts covered while recruitment continues?
- 03What has been done to reduce duplicated care records and make sure staff have enough time to complete them accurately?
- 04How do you check that shift handover information is accurate when people move rooms or their needs change?
- 05How are people's views about activities and daily routines gathered and acted on?
This was the home's first inspection and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 May 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.
Every inspection of Falmouth Court Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 January 2022.
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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £980 to £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.