CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at James Terry Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and identified risks, medicines were managed safely, and there were enough staff at the time. Recruitment decisions were not always formally recorded where there were gaps or concerns about previous employment.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and reflected in care plans. Staff had relevant training, people were supported with food, drink and healthcare, and the home worked with healthcare professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were supported with privacy, dignity, independence and choices about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised around people's preferences, routines and communication needs. People had access to activities and visitors, although some people wanted more outings in the community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found the home was well managed, with regular checks, accessible senior staff and systems for feedback, complaints and learning. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, October 2022
James Terry Court is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some staffing and recruitment records to improve.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 September 2022. Inspectors spoke with eight people, two relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files, training and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff at the time, safe medicines practice, suitable care planning, kind and dignified support, activities, and good links with healthcare professionals.
There were some shortfalls. Decisions to employ staff were not always formally recorded when there were gaps or concerns in work histories. Staff also did not routinely wear face masks in line with government guidance, although the provider had risk controls in place. The manager was reviewing staffing as people's needs changed.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found the home was meeting people's needs consistently at the time of the visit. The overall rating was unchanged from the previous inspection in 2017, while the Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
Kind and dignified care
Staff were patient, warm and respectful. They supported people discreetly and encouraged them to remain as independent as possible.
“Staff were kind and patient when supporting people. People were not rushed and could take as long as they wanted” from the report
Safe medicines
People received their medicines as prescribed. Records, stock checks and staff competency were reviewed.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's preferences, routines, communication needs and choices. Staff understood how people wanted their support delivered.
“People's records informed staff how people's care and support should be provided.” from the report
Activities and visitors
People could join a varied programme of activities and events. Friends and relatives could visit without unnecessary restrictions.
“People were encouraged and supported to take part in a wide range of activities and events at the service.” from the report
Improved leadership
The new manager had improved oversight, records, opportunities for feedback and the environment. The Well-led rating rose to Good.
“Since our last inspection, the provider had taken action to ensure the service was now well led.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingWhen there were gaps in a job history or concerns about previous employment, the reasons for appointing someone were not always formally recorded. The manager said this would be documented in future.
“We noted decisions to employ staff had not been formally recorded” from the report
Changing staffing needs
needs fixingStaff said people's needs in the residential wing had changed and that more staffing support would be helpful. The manager was reviewing this and had arranged a staff meeting.
“Staff told us people's needs had changed recently in the residential wing of the service and as such they would benefit from increased staffing support” from the report
Face masks
minorStaff did not routinely wear face masks in line with current government guidance. The provider had completed a risk assessment and put other measures in place to reduce infection risks.
“Staff did not routinely wear face masks around the service in line with current government guidance.” from the report
- 01What staffing levels are now in place in the residential wing, and how are they adjusted when people's needs change?
- 02How do you now record decisions to employ staff when there are gaps or concerns in their previous employment?
- 03What infection control arrangements are currently used, including when staff are expected to wear face masks?
- 04What refurbishment has been completed since the inspection, and what work is still planned?
- 05How many community outings are currently offered, following feedback that people wanted more outings?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; the previous overall rating was Good in 2017, while Well-led had previously been Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 October 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, October 2017
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found that the home needed to improve how it was led and how it communicated with families.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 September 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff records and management checks. They also observed care and lunchtime support.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received their medicines as prescribed and had enough staff to keep them safe. Staff supported people's health, dignity, choices, independence and social needs.
The well-led rating was Requires Improvement. People had limited chances to give regular feedback. The home also did not clearly tell people and their representatives about staffing plans or actions following internal checks and surveys. The provider was making improvements, including introducing electronic care records and refurbishing parts of the home.
Safe care
Inspectors found that staff understood safeguarding and risk management. The home carried out checks on its premises, equipment and emergency arrangements.
“People were safe at James Terry Court.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored and managed safely, and records showed people received them as prescribed. The home had checks for medicines and staff competence.
“People received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were managed and stored safely.” from the report
Respectful staff
Staff knew people well, respected their privacy and dignity, and encouraged them to remain as independent as possible.
“We saw people did not hesitate to ask for staffs' support when they needed this.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's routines, preferences, cultural and spiritual needs. Staff reviewed these plans when people's needs changed.
“People's support plans were personalised and reflected their preferences and choices for how care was provided.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were offered activities, entertainment and opportunities to follow their own interests. Families and friends were encouraged to attend social events.
“People were encouraged to take part in a range of activities to meet their social and physical needs” from the report
Limited regular feedback
needs fixingPeople did not have a formal programme of regular meetings with senior staff. This limited their chance to influence how the home improved.
“People had few opportunities to share their views and have their say in how the service could continuously improve to meet their needs.” from the report
Poor communication about improvements
needs fixingPeople and their representatives were not told clearly about plans to address staffing concerns or findings from internal reviews and surveys.
“People were not told how the provider planned to deal with any issues identified through internal quality reviews of the service.” from the report
Reliance on agency staff
needs fixingThere was a shortage of permanent staff and a large number of temporary agency staff were being used. Inspectors found checks and daily reviews were in place to maintain safety.
“Our checks of staff rotas confirmed a large number of agency staff had been used to resource the service.” from the report
One lunch service was poorly organised
minorThe lunchtime service on one floor was less organised and staff were not as attentive as they should have been. Inspectors noted a blocked route for a wheelchair user and a delay of more than 25 minutes for one meal.
“However the lunchtime service in the dining area on the top floor Kingfisher Suite was less well organised and staff were not as attentive to people and their needs as they should have been.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff are now employed, and how often are agency staff used?
- 02How will residents and relatives take part in regular meetings and give feedback about the home?
- 03How are families told about staffing plans and actions following quality surveys or internal reviews?
- 04What was done to improve the organisation of mealtimes, especially on the top floor?
- 05How have the new electronic care records and refurbishment work affected people's day-to-day care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with observations of care and lunchtime support and reviews of care, medicines, staff and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 October 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 James Terry Court
2 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 March 2016.
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 Croydon
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 £1,230 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.