CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Marston Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitors, admissions, PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing and outbreak prevention.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not covered as a separate question by this targeted inspection, although inspectors saw infection-control checks and audits.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 01 February 2021. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control because of the COVID-19 outbreak response. They checked whether people were protected from infection and whether the home followed safety measures.
Inspectors found the home clean and tidy. Staff had enough personal protective equipment and used it correctly. There were arrangements for safe admissions, visitor checks, family garden visits, regular COVID-19 testing, and infection-control audits.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating. It was a focused check of infection control, not a full assessment of all aspects of care.
Clean environment
The home was clean and tidy, with regular cleaning of areas that people touched frequently.
“The service was clean and tidy. Regular cleaning took place throughout the service including touchpoint areas.” from the report
PPE and staff practice
Staff had sufficient masks, gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser. Inspectors saw staff using PPE correctly and found a safe area for putting it on and taking it off.
“Staff had access to sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) including masks, gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser.” from the report
Testing and monitoring
Regular testing was carried out for staff and residents. Infection-control checks and audits gave the manager oversight of any problems.
“Regular checks and audits around infection control were completed to ensure the registered manager had oversight on the service, and could address any issues promptly if found.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are the same PPE supplies, cleaning arrangements and staff procedures still in place?
- 02How often are staff and residents tested for COVID-19 now?
- 03How would you manage a new COVID-19 outbreak, and how would families be kept informed?
- 04What arrangements are currently in place for family visits and visiting people safely?
- 05What are the home's current ratings or inspection findings for caring, responsive care, effective care and leadership, as this inspection did not assess them?
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices; it was not a full inspection of all five CQC questions and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 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, July 2019
Marston Court was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staff vacancies and a home larger than current guidance.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 24 June 2019. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were described as safe, treated with kindness and respect, supported to make choices, and helped to take part in activities and community life.
The home supported up to 22 people and 20 people were living there during the inspection. It is larger than current best practice guidance, but inspectors said the building design and its setting helped reduce any negative impact. Some care staff vacancies were being covered with regular agency staff.
The previous inspection rating was Good in October 2016, and the overall rating remained Good. This means the inspectors found consistently good care and management at the time of this inspection, rather than an Outstanding service.
Safety systems
Risks were assessed and reviewed. Staff had safeguarding and emergency training, and medicines were administered, stored and recorded safely.
“People were kept safe from harm by the assessments and monitoring systems that the provider had in place.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included detailed information about people's needs, communication and preferences. People were involved in creating and reviewing their plans where possible.
“People's plans of care had been developed on admission, they contained personal information and individualised guidance so that staff knew how to support people in the way they preferred.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke very positively about the staff. Inspectors saw support that protected people's privacy, dignity and independence.
“People and their relatives said that the staff were very caring, friendly and helpful.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to follow their interests, visit family, attend college and take part in activities such as swimming and horse riding.
“People participated in a wide range of activities.” from the report
Learning and oversight
Management used audits, feedback and investigations to improve the service. Inspectors gave an example of changes made after an incident involving a hot drink.
“The registered manager had comprehensive monitoring systems in place, they were aware of their responsibilities and worked with other agencies to ensure people received quality care and support.” from the report
Home is larger than current guidance
minorThe home was registered for 22 people, which inspectors said was larger than current best practice guidance. They said the design and location reduced the possible negative impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
Staff vacancies
minorSome care staff vacancies were being recruited to during the inspection. The home used the same four agency staff to help maintain staffing levels and continuity.
“Some care staff vacancies were being recruited to at the time of the inspection.” from the report
- 01How many care staff vacancies remain, and how often are agency staff now used?
- 02How do you make sure agency staff know each person's individual care and communication needs?
- 03How does the home’s size affect daily life, privacy, noise and access to staff for my relative?
- 04What changes have been made following the incident involving a hot drink?
- 05How will my relative be involved in creating and reviewing their care plan?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, so all five ratings were assessed rather than carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 July 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 Marston Court
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 December 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 Leicester
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. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing 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.