CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ontario Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were identified and managed, staffing was sufficient, recruitment checks were completed and medicines were administered safely. Infection control arrangements were also found to be effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and support and worked with health professionals. Inspectors noted that food intolerances were not always clearly explained in records, and some information about decision-making and mental capacity needed more detail.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as compassionate and respectful. Staff supported people to make choices, maintain privacy and develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised to people's communication styles, interests and goals. Staff used social stories and other methods to reduce distress and help people raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found open management, effective audits and good teamwork with relatives and health and social care professionals. There was no registered manager in post, but the current manager had applied to become registered.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Ontario Court rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some care-plan details needing improvement.
Inspectors made unannounced visits on 19 and 24 May 2022. They spoke with three people, three relatives, an advocate and eight staff. They also checked care, medicines, recruitment, training, incidents and management records.
The home was supporting three people and could support up to eight. Inspectors found that staff knew people well and supported their choices, independence, health, communication and interests. People were helped to take part in activities at home and in the local community.
The overall rating was Good. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the first inspection since the home registered in December 2020.
Promoting independence
Staff focused on what people could do and helped them pursue goals, interests and meaningful activities.
“Staff focused on people's strengths and promoted what they could do, enabling the opportunity for people to lead fulfilling and meaningful lives.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff treated people with compassion, respected their privacy and involved them in decisions.
“People received care that was kind and compassionate and based on people's own culture.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's needs, preferences and communication methods. Care plans reflected the support people needed and what they could do independently.
“People's care plans were an accurate reflection of the support they needed and what people could do independently.” from the report
Community and activities
People were supported to take part in hobbies, exercise, community activities and independent living tasks.
“Staff supported people with a wide and varied range of options for pastimes, hobbies, interests, exercise and independent living skills.” from the report
Food intolerance records
needs fixingInformation about food intolerances did not always clearly explain which foods might contain the relevant additives. The manager said this would be made clearer for agency staff.
“However, we found that where people had food intolerances, they were not always clearly explained and which foods could contain these additives.” from the report
Mental capacity information
needs fixingSome care plans did not contain enough information about people's decision-making and mental capacity, although staff understood how to support choices.
“Although care plans did not always contain enough information about each person's decision making and mental capacity, staff knew how to offer people choices in detail.” from the report
Accessible care plans
minorCare plans were not in an accessible format. Staff used other methods to help people understand information, and the manager said the plans would be made more accessible if needed.
“Although care plans were not in an accessible format, there were many other ways staff helped people access information.” from the report
Registered manager
minorThere was no registered manager in post when inspectors visited. The current manager had applied to become registered, and the provider remained legally responsible for the home.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure my relative's food intolerances are clearly recorded, including foods that may contain relevant additives?
- 02How do you record my relative's decision-making ability and mental capacity in their care plan?
- 03How will information and care plans be made accessible to my relative?
- 04Who is currently responsible for managing the home while the registered manager application is being processed?
- 05How would you support my relative to pursue their own interests, exercise and community activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; it was the home's first inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 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 Ontario Court
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 December 2020.
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 Peterborough
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 £1,370 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I honestly feel lucky to have found her and have already booked her for another visit.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.