CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rose Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were effective. This included personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning, visiting and outbreak planning.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed or rated in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed or rated in this inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed or rated in this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed or rated in this inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that Rose Court had good infection prevention and control measures.
This was an announced inspection as part of a national review of infection prevention and control in care homes during the coronavirus pandemic. The report says eight people were living in the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, supported testing, followed visiting and social distancing rules, and had plans for isolation and outbreaks. Cleaning of frequently touched surfaces had also increased.
The inspection did not give an overall rating or a rated result for Safe. It only looked at infection prevention and control, rather than all aspects of care.
Keeping families in touch
Staff changed visiting arrangements so people could see and speak with relatives when relatives could not visit the home.
“Staff adapted visiting routines to support people to see and speak with their relatives when they were not able to come to the home, by taking the person to visit their relative.” from the report
Isolation planning
The home had a self-contained area for isolation and zoning, with dedicated staff available if needed.
“One self-contained area of the home identified for isolation and zoning purposes, which would allow people to isolate in a range of rooms and with dedicated staff.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff used personal protective equipment as required and helped people understand why it was needed.
“Staff complied with the requirement to use PPE and had worked with people so that they also understood the need for this.” from the report
Cleaning and outbreak arrangements
Cleaning had increased, including on frequently touched surfaces. The home also used its own staff and had plans for staff to stay on site during an outbreak if needed.
“Cleaning of the home, including frequently touched surfaces, had increased to reduce the risk of transmission of infection.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach. The report does not say exactly what needed development.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01How are you currently managing visits and helping residents keep in touch with relatives?
- 02What arrangements are in place if a resident needs to isolate?
- 03How often are frequently touched surfaces cleaned?
- 04How do you manage testing and the safe use of personal protective equipment?
- 05What changes have you made following the resources identified by inspectors for developing your approach?
This was an announced thematic inspection focused on infection prevention and control; it was inspected but not rated and did not assess the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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, November 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the environment needed improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 5 September 2018. They spoke with people living at the home, staff and the deputy manager. They observed care, checked care and medicines records, reviewed staff files and training, and looked at how the service was monitored.
People were protected from harm and received their medicines safely. Staff were trained, respectful and knowledgeable about people's needs. Care plans were detailed and people were supported with activities, healthcare and decisions about their care.
The main weakness was the environment. Some areas were not clean, bathrooms were damp and poorly decorated, and the garden was not accessible to everyone. The overall rating stayed Good, but Effective was reduced to Requires Improvement because the environment was not well cared for.
People felt safe
Staff understood how to recognise and report harm. Risks were assessed, and inspectors found enough staff available to meet people's needs when required.
“People felt safe being supported at the service. Staff were knowledgeable about how to protect people from harm.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported people patiently and respectfully. They promoted privacy, dignity, independence and trust through consistent relationships.
“We observed staff supporting people in a patient and supportive manner, enabling them to complete tasks for themselves as far as possible.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, routines, health needs and life histories. People were involved in planning their support and activities.
“People received care and support that was personalised to their individual needs.” from the report
Positive management
People and staff found management approachable and supportive. The home used audits, meetings and feedback to identify areas for improvement.
“People and staff found the registered manager and deputy to be supportive and approachable and were very positive about how they managed the service.” from the report
Condition and cleanliness of the home
needs fixingSome areas were not clean, including bathroom extractor fans, the dining table and the kitchen sink area. Bathrooms were damp and poorly decorated, and the garden could not be accessed by everyone.
“The environment was not well cared for and did not create a pleasant environment for people to live in.” from the report
Staffing pressure
needs fixingStaff said there were not always enough staff and that cleaning was affected because they were supporting people with activities. The report says overtime was being used while recruitment continued.
“Staff told us there was not always enough staff but there was an ongoing recruitment drive to build up staffing levels on a more permanent basis.” from the report
- 01What improvements have been made to cleanliness, the damp bathrooms and the decoration since the inspection?
- 02Has the garden been made accessible to people with poor mobility?
- 03Are staffing levels now sufficient without relying on overtime?
- 04How often are cleaning tasks completed and checked?
- 05What progress was made with the environmental improvements approved for 2019?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five key questions and reviewing care, medicines, staffing, training, records and quality monitoring. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 November 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 Rose Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 February 2012.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Luton
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 £1,260 a week. 81 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 handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.