CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Osbourne Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm. Medicines, staffing, recruitment, infection control, risk assessments and accident reporting were managed appropriately.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit, so no new rating was given.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit, so no new rating was given.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People's needs and preferences were recorded in personalised care plans. Inspectors found improvements in handling complaints and lost property, and saw support for communication, activities and end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had clear management responsibilities and quality checks. Staff felt supported, and people, relatives and professionals gave positive feedback about how the home was managed.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Osbourne Court was rated Good; inspectors found major improvements in medicines, complaints and safety systems since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 21 April 2022. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm, medicines were managed safely, the home was clean and staffing was considered sufficient. People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care and support.
The inspection followed a Requires Improvement rating published in February 2020. Inspectors found significant improvements, including complete medicines records, better complaint recording and a clear process for lost personal items. This was a focused inspection, so the Effective and Caring areas were not newly assessed and the overall rating also used previous ratings.
Safer medicines
Medicines were prepared and given as prescribed. Records had no gaps, unwanted medicines were returned safely and staff were protected from interruptions during medicines rounds.
“Medicines were disposed of safely, records were fully completed, and staff were not disturbed when administering medicines.” from the report
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and had no safety concerns. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to act if they suspected abuse.
“People we spoke with told us they felt safe and they had no concerns around their safety.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records described people's routines, preferences and communication needs. Staff adapted how they communicated with people who had difficulty speaking.
“People's care records were person centred and contained information about their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Better complaints process
The home had improved how it recorded formal and informal complaints. Complaints were investigated and outcomes were shared with complainants.
“All concerns and complaints had been logged with a clear process in place.” from the report
Supportive leadership
Inspectors found clear management responsibilities and regular audits. Staff described a supportive working culture and people and relatives spoke positively about the management.
“Clear systems were used for monitoring and auditing the quality of care and support for people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are medicines audits carried out, and what happens if an error or missing record is found?
- 02How do you cover shifts when regular staff are off sick or on leave?
- 03How are complaints and informal concerns recorded, investigated and shared with families?
- 04How will you support my relative's communication needs, including if they cannot communicate verbally?
- 05How will my relative's daily preferences, activities and end of life wishes be recorded and reviewed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected, and the overall rating also used ratings from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 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 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control measures were keeping people safe.
This was a short-notice, targeted inspection on 29 October 2020. It followed concerns about infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found several safeguards. These included temperature checks, personal protective equipment, testing, social distancing, separated floors, infection control training and regular audits. Visits took place through a Perspex screen and were risk assessed.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a full set of ratings. It only reports on the infection prevention and control measures checked during this visit.
Controlled visiting
Visits were limited to essential visitors, checked on arrival and risk assessed. Relatives could also use a specially designed room with a Perspex screen, as well as phone and video calls.
“All visits were thoroughly risk assessed.” from the report
Protective equipment and testing
Staff had training and plentiful supplies of protective equipment. A testing programme was in place for staff and residents, with best interest decisions made about testing residents.
“Staff were trained on how to keep people safe from the risk of infection and how to use PPE correctly.” from the report
Reduced spread between floors
The two floors had separate entrances and staff did not work between them. The home had also removed some lounge chairs to support social distancing.
“The two floors of the home had separate entrances and staff did not work between the two floors.” from the report
Ongoing infection control checks
The provider had updated infection control policies and carried out regular audits.
“Regular infection control audits had been carried out.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection in October 2020?
- 02How are visits currently risk assessed, and what arrangements are available if a visit cannot take place in person?
- 03How do you test residents and staff for infections, and how do you make best interest decisions about testing residents?
- 04Do staff still work separately between floors, and how do you reduce the risk of infection spreading around the home?
- 05How often are infection control audits completed, and can families see the latest findings?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 December 2020 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 Osbourne Court
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 January 2011.
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 South Gloucestershire
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 £1,020 to £1,280 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.