CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Isabella Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found detailed risk assessments, safe recruitment, suitable staffing and effective safeguarding arrangements. Medicines were managed safely and incidents were reviewed to reduce the chance of them happening again.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were reviewed regularly. Staff received training and supervision, and worked with health professionals to support people's health, nutrition and wellbeing.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were given time to communicate, involved in daily decisions and supported to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records were personalised and updated when people's needs changed. People were supported with communication, activities, family relationships, complaints and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and supportive management culture. Audits, feedback and partnership working were used to review care and make improvements.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Isabella Court was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection by one inspector and an expert by experience. Inspectors spoke with five people, seven staff members and the registered manager. They also reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records, and received feedback from health professionals and relatives.
The home supported seven people with learning disabilities and or autism, and complex needs. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with dignity and supported to make choices. Staff knew people well and provided individual support that helped people stay active, maintain relationships and achieve positive outcomes.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home did not use restraint, seclusion or segregation at the time of the inspection. The previous inspection rating was also Good.
No restrictive interventions
The home reported that it was not using restraint, seclusion or segregation when inspectors visited. Staff were trained to use positive behaviour support and less restrictive options.
“The service did not use any restrictive intervention practices at the time of our inspection.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, communication methods and support needs. Staff used this information to provide consistent and individual care.
“People's care records were detailed and reflected a personalised approach.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found that staff understood people well, respected privacy and dignity, and gave people time to communicate and make decisions.
“Staff promoted people's dignity and knew how to protect their privacy.” from the report
Safe systems
Risk assessments, safeguarding procedures, recruitment checks and incident reviews were in place. The home was also clean and tidy.
“Cleaning and infection prevention and control practices were in place. The service was clean and tidy.” from the report
Active quality checks
The manager and provider used audits and feedback to review the service and reduce risks.
“Audits and quality assurance checks were completed within the service and by the provider.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and update my relative's care plan if their needs or communication methods change?
- 02What training do staff have for my relative's specific health, mobility or behavioural support needs?
- 03How are medicines reviewed, especially medicines that may affect behaviour?
- 04What activities and family visits would my relative be supported to take part in?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in decisions if they cannot communicate verbally or lack capacity?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, and all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 October 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with a need for a more structured approach to activities at home.
Inspectors visited without notice on 7 December 2016. They observed all nine residents, spoke with staff and six relatives, and checked care records, medicines, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, good healthcare support and detailed care plans.
This was an improvement from the previous inspection in October 2015, when the overall rating was Requires Improvement. Earlier recommendations about caring, activities and management had been acted on, although inspectors still saw some room to improve activities and the building.
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to support residents safely. Recruitment checks reduced the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.
“There were safe recruitment and selection processes in place, to reduce the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew residents well and supported them in a calm, kind and encouraging way. Inspectors saw staff protecting people's privacy and dignity.
“We saw staff treating people in kind, pleasant and encouraging ways.” from the report
Detailed care planning
Residents and families were involved in planning and reviewing care. Records gave staff detailed information about people's routines, preferences and support needs.
“The records we looked at contained person centred information about the person, their background, routines and preferences.” from the report
Positive management
The home had a registered manager, and relatives and staff said management was approachable. Audits and feedback were used to monitor the service.
“Overall we found that the atmosphere in the home was positive, friendly and pleasant.” from the report
Activities indoors
needs fixingInspectors saw outings and some activities, but staff sometimes struggled to keep people meaningfully engaged when they were at home. A more structured approach was needed.
“A more structured approach to individual activities for people while spending time in the home would be beneficial” from the report
Some tired parts of the building
needs fixingSome radiators were damaged or corroded, and the laundry floor had gaps. The home did not have a formal plan for ongoing renewal and refurbishment.
“We saw that some aspects of the home's physical premises were tired and would benefit from updating.” from the report
- 01What structured indoor activities are now available for each resident, and how are their interests recorded?
- 02What is the timetable for replacing the damaged or corroded radiators?
- 03Has the laundry flooring been repaired, and what other building improvements are planned?
- 04How are families involved in reviewing care plans and residents' activities?
- 05How do you check that staffing levels remain suitable when residents have appointments or activities outside the home?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the home, covering all five CQC questions and providing a new overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 2017 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 Isabella Court
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 August 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.