CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rebecca Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff were safely recruited, staffing levels were sufficient on the inspection day, medicines were managed safely, and accidents and incidents were analysed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans described people's needs, choices and health conditions. Staff had relevant training, people's weights and dietary needs were monitored, and healthcare professionals were contacted when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were involved in reviewing their care and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff gave people time to respond and supported their choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's needs and preferences. People had choice over daily life, meals and activities, and staff used different ways to support communication.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable management, regular audits and an open culture where staff could raise concerns. The home had a development plan and investigated accidents and incidents.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but the call bell system was sometimes unreliable and parts of the building needed updating.
Inspectors visited without notice on 23 May 2022. They spoke with people and staff, reviewed care and medicines records, observed a medicines round, and checked recruitment and other records. They also looked at infection prevention and control.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, detailed care plans, kind interactions and good support for people's choices, communication, activities and healthcare.
There were some issues to keep in mind. The call bell system had intermittent faults, although extra checks and a repair plan were in place. Some parts of the home were tired and needed modernisation, with a development plan underway.
Personalised care
Care plans were detailed and based on people's needs, preferences and communication methods. People and families were involved in reviews.
“Care plans were clear and detailed and in place for each identified care and support need people had.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people kindly, giving them choices and allowing them time to respond. People's dignity and privacy were respected.
“We observed staff interact with people in a kind and companionate way, they gave people choices and gave them time to respond, people were not rushed.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff on the day, safe recruitment checks and safe medicines procedures, including training and audits.
“We observed staff complete a medication round which assured us the training was embedded and safe working practices were being used.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People could choose whether to socialise and helped shape activities. The wishing tree was used to record activities that mattered to people.
“The service implemented a wishing tree, giving people opportunity to declare an activity they would like to do which would be stored on the wishing tree.” from the report
Unreliable call bell
seriousThe call bell system had intermittent faults. Extra 30-minute visual checks were used for people at risk of falls, and a repair plan was in place.
“The registered manager highlighted there were intermittent issues with the call bell system, causing it to be unreliable.” from the report
Tired parts of the building
needs fixingSome areas needed updating and modernisation. The manager said improvement work had started in some communal areas and the gardens.
“Some of the areas of the care environment was tired and required updating, the registered manager advised there is a development plan in place for the home” from the report
- 01Has the replacement call bell system been installed, and how is people's safety checked if it stops working?
- 02What work has been completed under the development plan for the tired areas of the home?
- 03What activities are currently available, and has an additional activity coordinator been appointed?
- 04How are care plans reviewed with the person and their family after a fall, accident or change in health?
- 05How are staffing levels checked when people's needs change?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with infection prevention and control also checked; inspectors visited on 23 May 2022 and completed final feedback on 1 June 2022. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 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.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Rebecca Court was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with refurbishment under way.
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection on 15 January 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, a relative, a social worker and staff, and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training and safety records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable training, fresh food, access to healthcare and care that respected people's choices, dignity and relationships.
The home remained Good, matching its rating at the previous inspection on 1 September 2015. A major refurbishment was in progress, and the home had increased activity staff hours so people could continue to have activities away from the building work.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines records and stock were checked daily, and staff made sure people were ready to take their medicines.
“People received their medicines when they needed them from staff who were competent to provide this.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff were described as kind and patient. They supported people's independence and privacy, including waiting before entering bedrooms.
“We observed staff knocking on doors and waiting to enter during the inspection, which demonstrated respectful practice.” from the report
Personalised activities
People had a choice of activities, reading materials and time with others or alone. Activity staff provided one-to-one support when needed.
“The activities we observed were inclusive, interactive and people joined in and had fun.” from the report
Clear management and checks
The manager was visible and approachable, and staff described good teamwork. Regular checks covered care records, infection control, the kitchen and health and safety.
“We found there to be a culture of good teamwork and morale amongst staff was positive.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How is the major refurbishment progressing, and which areas are still affected by the work?
- 02How do you adjust staffing when people arrive for respite care or rehabilitation?
- 03How are medicines records and stock checks reviewed if a mistake or omission is found?
- 04How often will my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed after their needs change?
- 05What activities are available for people who prefer one-to-one support or time in their bedroom?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection on 1 September 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 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 Rebecca Court
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 April 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.