CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at OSJCT Marston Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection, using protective equipment safely, supporting testing and maintaining clean premises.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this inspection.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- This area was not assessed in this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2020
OSJCT Marston Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements.
Inspectors visited the home on 3 November 2020. This was an announced thematic review focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
They found visitors were screened, hand hygiene facilities and masks were available, and staff used protective clothing. The home was clean, with frequent cleaning of higher-risk areas and shared facilities. Staff had infection-control training and supplies of protective equipment were monitored.
The home supported testing and used changes to seating and social groups to help with distancing. It also helped people keep in touch with families and take part in activities. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a full quality rating or ratings for all five areas.
Clean environment
The home was clean and higher-risk areas were sanitised at least twice a day. Shared dining areas and bathrooms were cleaned frequently after use.
“The premises were kept in a clean and hygienic condition throughout.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff were observed wearing appropriate protective equipment. Supplies were checked weekly and staff had infection-control training.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Visitor and infection checks
Visitors had their temperature taken and were asked about their health. The home was registered to test staff and people living there for COVID-19 infection.
“Visitors had their temperature taken and were asked questions about their health to identify signs of infection.” from the report
Keeping people connected
The home supported contact with families using digital technology and arranged socially distanced activities and virtual events.
“People were also able to participate in virtual events such as concerts, tea parties and church services.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently applying the best-practice advice on cohorting, zoning and isolation?
- 02How do you decide when people living in one unit need to be isolated because of suspected infection?
- 03What are your current arrangements for visits from family members?
- 04How often are shared bathrooms, dining areas and high-touch surfaces cleaned?
- 05How are staff and people living here currently tested for infection?
This was an announced thematic review of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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.
What inspectors found, July 2018
OSJCT Marston Court was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and outstanding responses to people's individual needs.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 2 May 2018. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and the manager. They also looked at care records, staff files, medicines records and records about how the home was run.
The home was safe and effective. People received their medicines as prescribed, there were enough staff, risks were assessed, and staff had suitable training. People were supported with their health, food choices, rights and independence.
Inspectors rated the care as Good in four areas: Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Responsive care was rated Outstanding because activities were closely matched to people's interests, wishes and past lives, and staff made strong efforts to prevent isolation.
The overall rating was Good. The report says the home remained Good overall, while the Responsive rating improved to Outstanding.
Personalised activities
Activities were tailored to people's interests, abilities and past experiences. Staff made unusual and sustained efforts to help people enjoy meaningful experiences.
“Staff at Marston Court went to exceptional lengths to align individual activities to peoples wishes and dreams which helped people to physically reconnect with their past.” from the report
Safe medicines
People told inspectors they received their medicines as prescribed. The records checked were accurate and complete, and staff were trained and assessed as competent.
“Records relating to the administration of medicines were accurate and complete.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and helpful. Inspectors saw respectful communication, support for independence and care that took account of people's wellbeing.
“People were treated with dignity and respect. When staff spoke about people to us they were respectful and they displayed genuine affection.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff said the management team was approachable. The home had systems for complaints, audits, incident reviews and feedback.
“There was an open and inclusive culture in the home and people, their relatives and staff felt they could approach the management team” from the report
Some nutrition records needed improvement
minorAn audit found shortfalls in records relating to nutrition screening. The manager checked whether people had received the right support and then addressed the recording problem with staff, after which records improved.
“A recent audit of care records had identified shortfalls in people's Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST).” from the report
- 01How do you make sure activities still reflect each person's current interests, abilities and wishes?
- 02How are nutrition screening records checked and kept up to date now?
- 03How do you decide whether there are enough staff on each shift for people's needs?
- 04How are medicines records checked for accuracy and completeness?
- 05How are relatives involved in reviewing care plans and raising concerns?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with the Responsive rating improving to Outstanding and the other ratings remaining Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 July 2018 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 Marston Court
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 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
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.