CQC report explained · a care home with nursing
What the CQC found at OSJCT Henry Cornish Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control. They found arrangements for PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing, safe admissions, outbreak management and visits.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, January 2022
OSJCT Henry Cornish Care Centre was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was a targeted inspection on 31 December 2021. It checked infection prevention and control because the home had been identified as a designated setting for people discharged from hospital with a positive COVID-19 status.
Inspectors found the home was very clean. Staff had training, enough protective equipment and followed procedures for using it. Testing, social distancing, cleaning, outbreak planning and visits were also in place.
The inspectors said they were assured that infection prevention and control guidance was being followed. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Clean surroundings
The home was described as very clean, with a detailed cleaning schedule and extra cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
“The home was spotlessly clean and a rigorous cleaning schedule was in place and followed by a dedicated domestic team.” from the report
PPE and training
Staff had infection control training, followed PPE procedures and had access to supplies from a vetted supplier.
“Staff had been well trained and followed robust PPE [personal protective equipment] protocols.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
Regular COVID-19 testing was carried out for people living in the home and staff. The home also had a plan for managing an outbreak.
“Regular testing for Covid-19 was conducted for both people living at the service and the staff.” from the report
Keeping relatives in touch
The provider supported contact through technology, an adapted visiting room and later visits following government guidance.
“The provider ensured people's relatives were able to stay in touch with people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing infection prevention and control for people admitted from hospital?
- 02How do you check that staff continue to use PPE safely and correctly?
- 03How often are people living here and staff tested for COVID-19, and what happens if there is a positive result?
- 04What is your current plan for managing an infection outbreak and how would relatives be kept informed?
- 05How are visits currently arranged for relatives?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; it did not rate the service overall or assess the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 January 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, August 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but leadership required improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 10 July 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, observed care, checked care and medicines records, and reviewed staff and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found that people were safe, received their medicines as prescribed, had their health and nutrition needs supported, and were treated with kindness and respect.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. There was no registered manager at the time. An interim manager was running the home while a newly appointed manager waited to start. Some supervision records were not up to date, and the Intermediate Care Unit was not being managed well.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in January 2017. The report says the provider had identified the management shortfalls and was working on improvements.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff had been trained and their competence had been checked.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and the home had safe medicine storage systems in place.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives said staff were caring. Inspectors saw calm, polite and respectful interactions.
“We observed staff talking to people in a polite and respectful manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, preferences and communication needs. Staff knew people well and supported them to do what they could for themselves.
“People received care and support specific to their needs, preferences and routines.” from the report
Good nutrition and choice
People were offered choices and special diets were catered for. Inspectors saw people enjoying their meals in the place they preferred.
“Staff supported people to maintain good nutrition and hydration.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager at the time of the inspection. An interim manager was running the home while a new manager waited to start.
“There was no registered manager in post and the home was being led by a manager from one of the provider's other homes.” from the report
Intermediate Care Unit management
needs fixingPeople were staying in Intermediate Care Unit beds longer than planned. Records did not show that their rehabilitation had been reviewed to see how it could be improved.
“People were staying in ICU beds for much longer than planned and records did not demonstrate that their care had been reviewed to establish how their rehabilitation might be enhanced.” from the report
Staff supervision records
minorSome staff supervision records were not up to date. The interim manager had identified this and planned further supervisions.
“Staff supervision records were not always up to date.” from the report
Activities could be wider
minorPeople had access to activities, but inspectors and the management team identified a need to improve their variety.
“We spoke to the management team about improving the variety of activities available to people.” from the report
- 01Is there now a registered manager, and how is the home currently being overseen?
- 02How are people in the Intermediate Care Unit's rehabilitation goals reviewed, especially when discharge is delayed?
- 03What has been done to ensure all staff receive regular supervision and that records are kept up to date?
- 04What new activities and trips are now available, and how are residents involved in choosing them?
- 05How much agency staff is currently being used, and has recruitment reduced the need for agency workers?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at all five key questions, including care, medicines, staffing, records, the premises and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 August 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 OSJCT Henry Cornish Care Centre
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at OSJCT Henry Cornish Care Centre →
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at OSJCT Henry Cornish Care Centre →
- January 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 October 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Oxfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.