CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Israel Sieff Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including cleaning, social distancing, PPE, testing, safe admissions and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
- Caring?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess this question, although inspectors noted that the registered manager was visible and supportive to staff.
What inspectors found, September 2021
Israel Sieff Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 2 September 2021. It checked infection prevention and control because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found the home was clean. Frequently touched areas were cleaned several times a day, hand sanitiser was available, and extra cleaning schedules had been introduced.
The home had arrangements for safer visits. Visitors booked in advance, completed a COVID-19 test and wore personal protective equipment. Staff had training and enough protective equipment was available.
The home was inspected but not rated. The inspection only looked at infection prevention and control, rather than giving a full rating for the quality of care.
Clean environment
The home was clean, with extra cleaning schedules and frequent cleaning of areas people touched often.
“The service was clean throughout, and there were procedures to ensure any infection control risks were minimised.” from the report
Managed visits
Visits were restarted with booking arrangements, testing and protective equipment to help reduce infection risks.
“Visits were pre-booked to ensure they were staggered and the number of visitors in the home was manageable at all times.” from the report
Staff infection control
Staff had infection control training and inspectors saw them using suitable protective equipment. The home had enough PPE available.
“The provider ensured there was enough PPE available for staff at all times.” from the report
Open leadership
The registered manager was visible and supportive, and sought advice from outside agencies.
“The registered manager sought support and advice from external agencies including the local health protection team and CQC” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are the additional cleaning schedules and frequent cleaning of touch points monitored now?
- 02How are visits currently arranged, and are visitors still asked to complete COVID-19 testing and wear PPE?
- 03How do you make sure staff remain trained in infection prevention and the correct use of PPE?
- 04How are testing, vaccination and other infection control decisions recorded and reviewed?
- 05What were the service's most recent ratings for caring, effectiveness, responsiveness and leadership, since this inspection did not assess them?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 September 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, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with some records and activity support needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 December 2018. Inspectors reviewed records, medicines, staffing, training, safety checks and care plans. They spoke with people living at the home, staff, a health professional and a relative.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and cared for. Inspectors found kind staff, safe medicines management, suitable care plans, access to health professionals and regular checks on the building.
There were some areas to improve. Food and drink records were being completed several hours late, conditions linked to some deprivation of liberty authorisations were not always included in care plans, and people were sometimes left without enough stimulation. The home acted on the food and drink records during the inspection and was asked to review the other issues.
Kind and respectful care
People told inspectors staff were kind and helpful. Inspectors observed friendly, respectful interactions and found that staff knew people's lives, preferences and care needs.
“People were treated with kindness, respect, and compassion. We observed interactions between staff and people living at the home that were caring and respectful.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff received training and competency checks, and inspectors found stock counts and administration records were accurate.
“Medicines were managed safely. The service's role in relation to medicines were clearly defined and described in relevant policies, procedures and training.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans recorded people's preferences, choices, communication needs and support requirements. People and families were able to contribute to their care plans.
“People received personalised care plans responsive to their needs. Care plans included information about people's needs, preferences and choices and described what actions staff needed to take to effectively support people.” from the report
Good management checks
Managers and the district manager carried out audits covering medicines, accidents, the building, training and care planning. Feedback from people and families was also reviewed.
“The registered and deputy managers completed audits of the home to ensure compliancy. This included the management of medicines, the safety of the premises and the management of accidents and incidents to look for patterns and trends.” from the report
Late food and drink records
needs fixingRecords for people at risk of malnutrition or dehydration were completed several hours after meals and drinks. The deputy manager changed the process during the inspection so records could be completed immediately.
“Food and fluid records for people at risk of malnutrition or dehydration were not completed until several hours after meals or drinks which meant they maybe not be accurate.” from the report
Some people lacked stimulation
needs fixingThere were activities and outings, but inspectors saw long periods when people in communal areas were unsupported and lacked stimulation. The home said this would be reviewed after changes to how activities were provided.
“Although we did see evidence of activities, there were long periods of time throughout the inspection, where people were left unsupported in communal areas and lacked stimulation.” from the report
DoLS conditions not always in care plans
needs fixingWhen a deprivation of liberty authorisation had conditions, these were not always added to the person's care plan. Inspectors recommended that this should be reviewed.
“DoLS applications were made to the local authority for review but when an application was granted with conditions to be met, this did not always feed into the care plan.” from the report
- 01How are food and drink records now completed at the time people eat and drink?
- 02How do you make sure every condition attached to a deprivation of liberty authorisation is included in the person's care plan?
- 03How are activities organised now that an activities organiser is no longer employed at the home?
- 04How do you make sure people in communal areas have staff support, conversation and stimulation throughout the day?
- 05How are covert medicines reviewed with the pharmacist or GP, including the food or drink used to disguise them?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the whole service and all five key questions, including the premises and care provided; all previous ratings from May 2016 remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 January 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 Israel Sieff Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2010.
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 Manchester
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. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.