CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Loose Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including visitor screening, PPE, testing, cleaning and outbreak arrangements. A risk assessment for one respite admission was completed only after inspectors requested it.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Loose Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements, but one admission risk assessment was completed late.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 24 January 2022. It was carried out because of COVID-19 outbreaks and focused on infection prevention and control, as well as staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks. This included visitor screening, testing, face masks, hand sanitiser, personal protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing and plans to isolate people with COVID-19.
There was one shortfall. A risk assessment for a person admitted for short respite had not been completed in line with government guidance until inspectors asked for it. It was completed during the inspection.
The home was inspected but not rated. Only the Safe question was inspected at this visit, and it was also recorded as inspected but not rated. This report does not provide an overall quality rating.
Visitor safety
The home had arrangements for visits that aimed to reduce infection spread. Visitors were screened, tested, asked to sanitise their hands and wear masks.
“Visitors were asked health screening questions, temperatures were taken, visitors were also advised to sanitise their hands-on arrival and wear face masks.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had plans to isolate people with COVID-19 if needed, to help reduce transmission.
“Plans were in place to isolate people with COVID-19 to minimise transmission if required.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the building clean and uncluttered, with enhanced cleaning in place.
“The building was clean and free from clutter and there were enhanced cleaning practices.” from the report
PPE and staff testing
Supplies of PPE were readily available. Staff had received COVID-19 safety training and were regularly tested.
“Staff had received training on how to keep people safe during the COVID-19 pandemic and staff and were regularly tested for COVID-19.” from the report
Late admission risk assessment
needs fixingA risk assessment for a person admitted for short respite was not completed in line with government guidance before the admission. It was completed while inspectors were still at the home.
“However, a risk assessment had not been completed in line with government guidelines until we requested it.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure a risk assessment is completed before someone is admitted for respite?
- 02What steps would you take if a person living in the home developed COVID-19?
- 03How are visitors screened and tested before visits, and what happens if a test is positive?
- 04How do you monitor PPE supplies, staff testing and cleaning arrangements now?
- 05What staffing pressures are you experiencing, and what measures are in place to manage them?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 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, December 2019
Loose Court rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with only minor building repairs still being completed.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 26 November 2019. One inspector spoke with 10 people, staff and managers, and reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment, training, complaints and quality checks. The inspector also observed care for people who could not communicate easily.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Staff supported people with medicines, healthcare, food, communication, activities and personal choices.
There had previously been a medicines-record problem. The report says this had been fixed by this inspection. A small number of building defects, including damaged flooring and broken window locks, were being repaired.
Medicines were managed safely
The earlier problem with medicines records had been addressed. Records showed medicines were given in the right way and at the right time.
“An accurate record was created on each occasion a medicine was administered.” from the report
Kind and dignified care
People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw that privacy, dignity, independence and personal preferences were respected.
“I'm treated right here and I feel safe because the staff are genuinely kind.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was planned with people and their representatives. People could choose aspects of daily life, including bathing, clothing and when to get up or go to bed.
“The staff always check out with me what help I want.” from the report
Activities and contact with relatives
People were supported to enjoy group and individual activities and to keep in touch with family and friends.
“There's always something going on even if I just want to watch and not join in.” from the report
Good oversight
The management team used regular checks, meetings and feedback from people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals to monitor the service.
“Quality checks had been completed so people reliably received safe care and treatment meeting their needs and expectations.” from the report
Minor building defects
minorA small number of repairs were still being completed. These included damaged bathroom flooring and broken window locks.
“These included damaged flooring in a bathroom and some broken window locks.” from the report
- 01Have the damaged bathroom flooring and broken window locks now been repaired?
- 02How do you assess and review a new resident's risk of falling?
- 03How are medicines records checked regularly to make sure every dose is recorded accurately?
- 04How will you support my relative's communication needs and personal choices?
- 05What activities and individual support would be available if my relative preferred to spend time in their bedroom?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating; the report says historic falls were investigated by the local safeguarding authority but were not examined during this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 December 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 Loose Court
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 August 2012.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.