CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Marling Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Risk assessments were not always updated when people's needs or behaviour changed. Staff could not always explain the purpose of risk plans or how to reduce risks.
- Effective?
- Good
- No separate rating was given for this question in the report.
- Caring?
- Good
- No separate rating was given for this question in the report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- No separate rating was given for this question in the report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager had oversight of the service, carried out regular audits and involved people and staff through meetings and surveys.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Good overall, but Safe was Requires Improvement because risk information was not always updated or clear.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 16 January 2023. They spoke with people, staff and relatives, reviewed care and recruitment records, and checked audits, incidents, premises and infection control.
The home had enough staff, safe recruitment checks and suitable safeguarding procedures. Medicines were safely given, infection control arrangements were in place, and people were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act.
The main shortfall was risk management. Some risk assessments did not reflect changes in people's behaviour or needs, and staff could not always explain how the plans should reduce risk. The home updated records promptly after the inspection, but inspectors said this should have happened sooner.
The overall rating stayed Good, as did the well-led rating. The Safe rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. The report did not give separate ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. People said they received help promptly when they used their call bells.
“People continued to receive care and support from adequate numbers of staff to keep them safe.” from the report
Medicines and infection control
Medicines records were accurately completed and medicines were safely administered. Inspectors were assured that infection prevention arrangements were effective.
“We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report
Positive leadership
Inspectors found regular quality checks, a relaxed atmosphere and a manager who worked with other services to support people's care.
“We observed a relaxed atmosphere on the day of our inspection, with staff supporting people in a knowledgeable and considered way.” from the report
Safeguarding and legal safeguards
The home reported safeguarding concerns and worked with the local authority. Inspectors found that Mental Capacity Act principles and relevant authorisations were being followed.
“We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty.” from the report
Risk plans were not always updated
seriousA person's risk assessment did not reflect changing behaviour or give staff clear instructions. Inspectors said this increased the risk of harm and that the response was not timely.
“the person's risk assessment had not been updated to reflect the behaviours they engaged in and to provide staff with clear and succinct guidance” from the report
Staff knowledge of risk plans
seriousStaff were not always able to explain the purpose of risk assessments or management plans. This meant inspectors could not be fully assured that staff knew how to reduce risks.
“Staff were not always able to articulate to us the purpose of a risk assessment or management plan.” from the report
Some medicines records needed improvement
minorStaff did not always record why an as-required medicine had been given. The provider took prompt action to improve this after it was identified.
“Where staff did not always record the reason for the administration of 'as required' medication the provider ensured prompt action was taken to improve this.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to risk assessments after the inspection?
- 02How do you make sure staff know about changes in a person's behaviour, needs and risk plan?
- 03How do you check that staff understand the purpose of each risk assessment and management plan?
- 04How do you now record the reason when as-required medicines are given?
- 05How will you monitor the improvements to safety identified in this inspection?
This inspection assessed Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 2023 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, March 2022
Marling Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, while some staff still needed infection prevention training.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 28 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors were assured that the home screened visitors, used personal protective equipment safely, arranged testing and managed outbreaks. The home also had processes for isolating people, cleaning rooms and handling laundry separately.
The home supported contact with relatives through visits, video calls, telephone calls and garden visits when possible. It had risk assessments for residents and explained temporary visiting restrictions during a recent outbreak.
This was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. The report does not give ratings for the other four areas of care.
Visitor infection controls
Visitors were screened, tested and supported to use face coverings and PPE. The home also limited and arranged visits during the pandemic.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Managing outbreaks
The home had arrangements for isolating residents and staff, using PPE and handling laundry separately during an outbreak.
“The provider had a process in place for the isolation of residents in the case of positive Covid-19 tests and if staff tested positive for Covid-19.” from the report
Keeping families connected
When normal visits were restricted, the home supported other ways for residents to stay in contact with relatives and friends.
“The provider supported alternative forms of maintaining social contact for friends and relatives; for example, video calling using tablets, visits in the communal gardens during the summer months and using a telephone to communicate.” from the report
Training still required
needs fixingThe infection control statement identified that some staff still needed infection prevention and COVID-19 awareness training. Actions had been identified and were in progress.
“An annual statement for infection control had been completed in January 2022 which identified that training in IPC and Covid-19 awareness was required for some members of staff.” from the report
- 01Which staff still needed infection prevention and COVID-19 awareness training, and has all of this training now been completed?
- 02What actions were identified by the infection prevention and control audits, and have they all been completed?
- 03How will visits be arranged if there is another COVID-19 outbreak?
- 04How does the home manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 05How are residents supported to keep in contact with relatives when in-person visits are stopped?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements 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 17 March 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.
Every inspection of Marling Court
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 February 2015.
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 Richmond upon Thames
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 £1,270 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“We cannot speak highly enough of the care that Angelique gave, and would recommend her to anyone else needing a live-in carer.”
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.