CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at OSJCT Foxby Court
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found risks were not always well managed. These included repositioning, care plan information, medicines storage and infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward, but the report does not state that separate rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Inspectors nevertheless saw caring support and a person-centred approach.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Inspectors said staff showed good knowledge of people's needs.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality checks did not reliably identify or address problems with repositioning, care plans, medicines records and cleaning. The management team was working to improve oversight.
What inspectors found, January 2024
OSJCT Foxby Court was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with skin care, medicines, cleanliness and management oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 27 November 2023. Inspectors reviewed Safe and Well-led only. They spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff, observed care, and checked care records, risk assessments, medicines information and staff files.
The home was not always safe. Repositioning was not always recorded as needed, some care plans lacked important information, a medicines trolley was left unlocked and unattended, and some cleaning was not completed consistently. These issues created risks to people's safety.
Management checks had not identified or acted on several of these problems. The report says the new registered manager and head of care responded to the concerns and began making changes. Staff were caring, trained and understood safeguarding responsibilities.
The overall rating is Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The other areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward.
Safeguarding
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood their safeguarding duties and were confident that concerns would be acted on.
“People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
The provider had established staffing levels and safe recruitment processes. Staff had appropriate training for their roles.
“The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff.” from the report
Kind, person-centred support
Staff supported people in the way they wished and showed good knowledge of their needs. Relatives described the culture as friendly and person centred.
“The registered manager and staff worked to support people in the way they wished to be supported.” from the report
Openness
The management team was described as open and inclusive. Relatives said they were involved in their family member's care.
“There was a positive and open culture at the service.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act
The provider was working in line with the Mental Capacity Act. People were supported to have choice and control where possible.
“The provider was working in line with the Mental Capacity Act.” from the report
Skin damage risks
seriousSome people were recorded as going between five and seven hours without repositioning at certain times. This put them at risk of skin damage.
“Some people's repositioning charts showed at a particular time of day these people went for between 5 and 7 hours without being reposition.” from the report
Medicines safety
seriousA medicines trolley was left unlocked and unattended for about five minutes while mobile people were nearby. Records also showed that some topical creams had not been recorded as given.
“We found a medicines trolley had been left in the dining room unlocked during our visit.” from the report
Care plan information
needs fixingSome care plans did not give staff enough guidance about conditions such as Parkinson's disease and epilepsy, or about how to support known anxieties.
“Some people who had underlying chronic health conditions such as Parkinson's or Epilepsy had no specific care plans about these conditions in their care records.” from the report
Cleaning and infection control
needs fixingSome kitchen cleaning duties were not completed consistently. Rusted wheel casings on work trolleys could not be cleaned effectively.
“Cleaning schedules in the kitchen showed some daily cleaning duties had not been undertaken consistently.” from the report
Management checks
seriousQuality audits had not identified or followed up several problems. This meant the home did not have reliable oversight of important areas of care.
“This lack of oversight put people at risk of not receiving safe care and was a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure people are repositioned at the intervals in their care plans, and how is this checked?
- 02How do you now make sure medicines trolleys are locked and attended at all times?
- 03Which care plans have been updated for conditions such as Parkinson's disease and epilepsy, and how are staff told about the changes?
- 04How do you check that kitchen cleaning is completed and that equipment can be cleaned properly?
- 05What action has been completed in response to the Regulation 12 and Regulation 17 breaches, and what evidence can you show us?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 2024 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 2017
OSJCT Foxby Court was rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with effective management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 10 November 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care, reviewed four care records and checked staffing, training and management records.
Inspectors found that people were safe and that medicines, staffing, recruitment and infection control were managed properly. They found that staff had the skills needed, people received suitable food and healthcare, and consent was handled in line with the law.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Care was personalised, activities were available, complaints were investigated and end-of-life wishes were considered. The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It had also been rated Good at the previous inspection on 15 April 2015.
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found reliable arrangements for medicines and enough care staff to provide the help people needed promptly.
“There were enough care staff on duty to promptly provide people with the care they needed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were friendly, discreet and considerate. They supported people's privacy and helped make moving into the home less daunting.
“We saw that the service ensured that people were treated with kindness and that they are given emotional support when needed.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff consulted people about the care they wanted and kept care plans under review as needs and wishes changed.
“We found that people received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Activities and interests
People were offered activities and opportunities linked to their hobbies, interests, celebrations and community life.
“People told us that they were offered the opportunity to pursue their hobbies and interests and to enjoy taking part in a range of social activities.” from the report
Learning and oversight
The registered persons investigated accidents and near misses, made improvements and used regular checks to monitor the quality of care.
“We found that the registered persons had ensured that lessons were learned and improvements made when things had gone wrong.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure my relative's care plan is reviewed when their needs or wishes change?
- 02How many care staff are usually on duty for each shift, and how do you respond when someone needs more help?
- 03How do you check that medicines are given at the right time and in the right way?
- 04What activities could my relative take part in, based on their hobbies and interests?
- 05How would you support my relative's wishes about hospital treatment and care at the end of their life?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, and all five ratings were given as Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 December 2017 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 OSJCT Foxby Court
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 November 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“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.