CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Isabel Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about protective equipment, distancing, cleaning, admissions and outbreak planning. They were only somewhat assured about testing because respite guests were not being tested in line with national guidance.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Isabel Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, but respite guests were not yet tested in line with national guidance.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 18 February 2021. It was carried out after concerns were received about infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found that staff were using protective equipment, cleaning arrangements were in place, and the home was following shielding, distancing and visiting guidance. There was also a plan for managing an infection outbreak.
The home was not given an overall quality rating. The Safe question was inspected but not rated. Inspectors were only somewhat assured that people using the respite service and staff were accessing testing, because respite guests were not being tested as national guidance said.
Protective equipment
Staff were observed using protective equipment, and inspectors were assured that it was being used effectively and safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Cleaning and hygiene
Inspectors found appropriate additional cleaning arrangements and were assured about the safety and hygiene of the premises.
“Personal protective equipment (PPE) practices were in place. For example, staff were observed to be wearing PPE and appropriate additional cleaning protocols were in place.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had a plan for responding to an infection outbreak, including using different areas to isolate people.
“There was a robust business continuity plan. This included procedures to follow in the event of an infection breakout.” from the report
Wellbeing activities
People could take part in activities they enjoyed, including music, television and reading, with support to go outside if they wished.
“People were supported to maintain their wellbeing by having activities that interested them, such as, listening to music, watching TV, reading” from the report
Testing for respite guests
needs fixingPeople staying for respite were not being tested as required by national guidance at the time of the inspection. The home said it was working towards introducing lateral flow testing.
“People residing for respite were not being tested as per national guidance.” from the report
- 01What testing arrangements are now in place for people staying for respite?
- 02Has lateral flow testing been introduced, and when is each person tested?
- 03What happens if a person staying for respite has not had the required test?
- 04How would the home isolate people if there were an infection outbreak?
- 05How does the home keep its infection prevention and control policy up to date?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 April 2021 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, November 2019
Isabel Court was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with plans for the service to close in about a year.
This was a planned, unannounced inspection on 12 November 2019. One inspector spoke with one person using the home, three relatives and four staff. They also reviewed care records, policies, meeting notes and quality checks.
The home provides short-term respite care for up to three adults with learning or physical disabilities. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff understood their needs, medicines were managed safely and people were supported to make choices and take part in activities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published in May 2017.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and knew staff well. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and how to report concerns.
“I am safe here. I know staff well.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff were trained and checked as competent before giving medicines. Regular checks were used to make sure medicines were given as prescribed.
“Medicines were managed safely by staff who were appropriately trained and had their competencies checked before they could administer medicines to people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and approachable. Staff supported people's choices, privacy and dignity.
“Staff are always kind and caring. They are also very approachable and accommodating to us as parents.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's individual needs, preferences and communication methods. Staff also supported planned activities and socialising.
“People's care plans included personalised information to support the staff team to deliver consistent person-centred care.” from the report
Active management checks
Managers used audits, surveys and meetings to monitor the service. The report says action was taken when improvements were needed.
“These showed that where areas of the service required improvement, improvements were made in a timely way.” from the report
Planned closure
minorPeople and relatives were disappointed about plans by the funding authority to close the home in approximately a year. Families should ask how this could affect future respite stays.
“Everyone we spoke with told us that the service was well managed, and they were disappointed due to plans the funding authority had to close the service in approximately a year.” from the report
- 01The report mentions plans to close the home in approximately a year. What is the current timetable, and what alternative respite arrangements will be offered?
- 02How will you update the person's care plan and risk assessments before each short-break admission?
- 03How will you support the person's communication needs, including any sign language, pictures or other communication methods?
- 04How will you manage the person's medicines during the stay, and how will relatives be told about any errors or changes?
- 05What activities and off-site arrangements can be provided during the person's stay, and how is staff cover organised?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care, accommodation and management of the home, covering all five CQC key questions; the home was not providing end of life care at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 November 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.
Every inspection of Isabel Court
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2011.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.