CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Marquis Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, safe recruitment checks and appropriate safeguarding arrangements. Infection prevention and control measures were also in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed or rated in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed or rated in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People had personalised care plans that explained how they wished to be supported. Staff checked paper and electronic records during the changeover and regularly reviewed care plans.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found the home well managed, with staff who understood their roles. Quality checks had previously lapsed but had been brought up to date.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Targeted inspection found people safe and well supported, but the home was inspected and not rated.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 30 June 2022. One inspector checked specific concerns about safeguarding, staffing, care planning and quality management. Infection prevention was also reviewed.
Inspectors found people were safe and happy. There were enough staff, safeguarding systems were understood, recruitment checks were completed and infection control arrangements were in place. Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed.
The home was described as well managed. Quality checks had previously lapsed during the pandemic and workforce pressures, but the home had brought them up to date and was introducing steps to reduce the risk of this happening again.
The home was not given a new overall rating. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were all marked 'Inspected but not rated'. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 30 April 2020.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff knew how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns.
“Staff knew people well and were aware of how to report any safeguarding issues or concerns.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs safely. Recruitment checks were also completed.
“There were enough staff on duty to safely meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's needs and wishes. Staff and managers checked both record systems during the move from paper to electronic plans.
“People received person-centred care which met their needs.” from the report
Open management
The home was described as well managed, and staff felt supported in their roles.
“The home was well-managed. The registered manager and staff understood their roles and responsibilities.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including safe use of protective equipment.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Quality checks had lapsed
needs fixingSome quality audits had previously stopped during the pandemic and workforce pressures. The home had brought them up to date and was introducing a delegation system to reduce the chance of this happening again.
“Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and workforce pressures experienced because of this, the registered manager informed us that some quality audits had previously lapsed.” from the report
- 01How are you checking that staff follow the correct care plan while paper and electronic care records are being used?
- 02Which quality audits had lapsed, and how often are they now completed?
- 03How will the new scheme of delegation prevent quality checks from lapsing again?
- 04How do you monitor staffing levels when incidents make the service busier?
- 05What was checked at the last full inspection, and when is the next comprehensive inspection expected?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about safeguarding, staffing, care planning and quality management, with infection control also reviewed; it did not assess every part of the five key questions, so the previous Good ratings were not changed. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 August 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, May 2021
Marquis Court: targeted inspection found people safe, well cared for and well managed, but the service was inspected without a new rating.
The inspection took place on 21 January, 27 January, 4 February and 19 February 2021. It was a targeted inspection following concerns about staffing, medicines, risk management, safeguarding, dignity and management.
Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, quality checks and other management documents. They also checked the premises and infection control arrangements.
Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from the concerns investigated. They found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, well-managed risks, kind care and good communication from the management team.
The home was inspected but not rated. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 30 April 2020. This inspection did not review every part of the service, so it did not change the previous ratings.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns and the manager acted on concerns in a timely way.
“People felt very safe living in the home and with the support they received from staff.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicine training, staff competency checks and regular medicine record checks were in place.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Kind and dignified care
Staff respected people's choices and privacy. They supported people with personal care and continence needs in a way that protected their dignity.
“Staff treated people in a dignified way and respected their wishes and choices.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management of the home. Inspectors found regular communication and a quality assurance process.
“The provider and registered manager monitored the quality of the service to make sure they delivered a high standard of care and to drive improvement.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about the home's arrangements for preventing and managing infection, including COVID-19 measures, protective equipment and testing.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What staffing levels are in place now, and how are they matched to residents' needs?
- 02How often are medicines records checked, and what happens if an error is found?
- 03How are accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns reviewed to prevent repeat problems?
- 04How will you keep us informed about changes in our relative's health, care or visiting arrangements?
- 05When is the next comprehensive inspection expected, and what areas will it cover?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about Safe, Caring and Well-led areas; it did not assess the whole service, and the previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 May 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.
Every inspection of Marquis Court
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 July 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Sunderland
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 £950 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.