CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Guy's Court Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, robust recruitment, safe medicine arrangements and good systems for safeguarding and managing risks. Infection prevention and control measures were also found to be effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and were reviewed when needs changed. Staff had relevant training, people received healthcare support and meals offered quality and choice.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with patience, kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people's independence and involved them in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was planned around people's preferences, communication needs and interests. The home offered individual and group activities, supported relationships and had a complaints procedure.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive and caring culture, with management systems for checking quality and risks. Relatives and staff were consulted, although survey results were still being analysed.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no breaches or enforcement action reported.
This was the home’s first comprehensive inspection since it registered in July 2020. The inspection was unannounced and took place on 2 and 3 November 2022, with inspection activity continuing until 4 November.
Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, the registered manager and a visiting professional. They observed care, checked the building and infection controls, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment, training and management records.
They found the home clean, with enough staff and safe medicine systems. People described kind and patient staff, good food, activities, and care that respected their choices and independence. All five areas were rated Good, meaning the inspectors found consistently good outcomes and management at the time of the inspection.
Clean and safe environment
The building was clean and hygienic, and staff used appropriate protective equipment. Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed.
“The building was clean and hygienic, and staff were seen to wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's individual needs and preferences. Records were reviewed regularly and when people's needs changed.
“Care records were regularly reviewed and updated monthly or when people's needs changed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed relaxed, caring interactions. People were supported with dignity, choice and independence.
“Staff treated people with care, patience, respect and kindness.” from the report
Activities and involvement
An activity coordinator arranged group and individual activities and produced a monthly newsletter. People were supported to maintain relationships and follow their interests.
“Guy's Court employed an activity coordinator who organised a variety of activities both individual and group events.” from the report
Food and choice
People and relatives gave positive feedback about the quality and choice of meals.
“People were provided with meals of quality and choice.” from the report
Required information was not submitted
minorThe provider had not completed the required Provider Information Return before the inspection. This meant inspectors did not receive that planned source of information from the provider.
“The provider did not complete the required Provider Information Return (PIR).” from the report
- 01What did the recent surveys from people, relatives and staff show, and what improvements have been made as a result?
- 02Why was the required Provider Information Return not completed before the inspection?
- 03How are staffing levels checked when people's needs change or the home is busy?
- 04How will my relative's personal preferences, communication needs and activities be recorded and reviewed?
- 05How are medicines, risks and safeguarding concerns checked and followed up?
This was an unannounced first comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 December 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.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care, enough staff and well-organised management.
The inspection visit took place on 28 July 2022 and was announced. One inspector spoke with four residents, five staff and the registered manager. They observed care, checked records, looked around the building and reviewed medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was clean and hygienic. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good safeguarding arrangements and safe medicines systems. Risks were assessed and incidents were reviewed to help prevent problems happening again.
Inspectors found person-centred care, good communication and management systems that were used to improve the home. Residents, relatives and staff were asked for their views, and the manager acted on suggestions.
The overall rating was Good. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good, as they were at the previous inspection published on 20 September 2020. The report does not give ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet residents' needs. Residents said they did not have to wait long for help.
“Personally I have never had a problem when I needed someone to give me a hand. I have never had to wait long.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff received regular medicines training and kept appropriate records for receiving, giving and disposing of medicines.
“There were written protocols to guide staff on the administration of medicines prescribed 'as and when' required.” from the report
Person-centred care
Care records were up to date and easy to follow. Residents said staff knew them well and involved them in their care.
“I am involved on how they care for me we are not all the same the staff are very good and know me well.” from the report
Open management
The management team used audits and feedback to oversee the home and make improvements. Staff said their views were listened to.
“Staff said their views and suggestions were listened to and they felt valued by the registered manager.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient when people need extra help or staff are absent?
- 02How are lessons from incidents recorded and used to prevent the same problem happening again?
- 03How do you respond to negative comments from resident or relative surveys?
- 04How will visiting work if there is another COVID-19 outbreak or other infection concern?
- 05Which areas have been assessed since this report, as Effective, Caring and Responsive were not rated here?
This inspection focused on Safe and Well-led; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 August 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.
Every inspection of Guy's Court Residential Care Home
8 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Guy's Court Residential Care Home →
- August 2022Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Guy's Court Residential Care Home →
- November 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 July 2020.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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 £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.