CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ross Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, safeguarding systems and good infection control. They noted that medicines records did not always explain why as-needed medicines had been given.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People received personalised care and had support with communication, activities, relationships, complaints and end-of-life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive person-centred culture, approachable management and systems for monitoring quality, complaints, incidents and medicines.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Ross Court Care Home: Rated Good; inspectors found safe, personalised care, with some records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 24 and 30 August 2023. Two inspectors spoke with four people, a relative and six staff. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall, with Safe, Responsive and Well-led also rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good infection control and systems to protect people from abuse. People received personalised care and had activities, visitors and support at the end of life.
There were some record-keeping issues. On the first day, some care plans did not clearly record people's capacity, but this was corrected during the inspection. Medicines records did not always state why some as-needed medicines had been given, although the home had already identified this and was addressing it.
This inspection only directly assessed Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Effective and Caring were not inspected, so their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall Good rating. The previous overall rating was also Good.
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and saw staff respond promptly. Recruitment records showed checks had been completed.
“There were enough staff available to support people's needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, life histories and communication needs. Staff knew people well and tailored support to them.
“People received personalised care which met their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered a varied activities programme and supported people to maintain relationships and take part in community activities.
“An activities team organised a rich programme, whereby different things to do for fun and interest were offered for those who wished to participate.” from the report
Positive management
Inspectors found an open and supportive culture. People, relatives and staff were asked for feedback, and quality systems were used to improve the service.
“There was a positive person-centred culture at the service which ensured good outcomes for people.” from the report
As-needed medicine records
needs fixingMedicines administration records did not always say why as-needed medicines had been given. The home had identified the issue through its own audit and was working to correct it.
“However, we found that people's Medicines Administration Records [MARs] did not always reflect a reason why PRN has been administered.” from the report
Care plan clarity
minorSome care plans did not clearly record people's capacity on the first inspection day. The provider updated the records before the second day.
“On the first day of our inspection we found that not all care plans provided clear information about people's capacity.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicines records explain why each as-needed medicine was given?
- 02How do you make sure care plans clearly record a person's capacity for each relevant decision?
- 03What changes were made during the refurbishment, and how will you keep checking its impact on residents?
- 04How are activities adapted for people who cannot leave their rooms or who live with dementia?
- 05How can relatives give feedback or raise a complaint, and how will the home show what was learned?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 September 2023 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 2022
Ross Court Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe, responsive and well-led care, but visiting arrangements were not initially in line with government guidance.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 17 and 19 January 2022. Two inspectors visited, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, safety, infection control and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were each rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines systems, personalised care plans, activities and support for family visits.
At the time of the inspection, visiting arrangements did not fully follow government guidance. The provider changed them during and immediately after the inspection. Inspectors found no impact on people's well-being. Effective and Caring were not inspected during this visit, so the overall rating used previous ratings for those questions.
Staffing and safety
People said they did not wait long for help, and staff understood people's risks. Recruitment checks were completed before new staff worked with people.
“People told us they did not have to wait long if they wanted assistance and there was enough staff to care for them.” from the report
Personalised care
People and relatives were involved in care decisions. Care plans included personal histories, preferences, medical needs and risks, and were updated when needs changed.
“People and their relatives were involved in decisions about what care was to be provided.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to enjoy activities, go for walks, have one-to-one time and stay in contact with family and community groups.
“People were positive about the support they had to do things they enjoyed.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff said they could give feedback and make suggestions. Managers reviewed incidents, complaints and care records to identify improvements.
“People and their relatives told us the culture at the home was open and staff encouraged them to decide the way they wanted care to be provided.” from the report
Visiting guidance
needs fixingVisiting arrangements were not fully in line with government guidance when inspectors visited. The provider changed them during and immediately after the inspection, and inspectors found no effect on people's well-being.
“At the time of the inspection, visiting arrangements were not aligned to government guidance.” from the report
- 01What visiting arrangements are in place now, and how do you make sure they follow current guidance?
- 02How often will my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed?
- 03How will you support my relative's communication, hearing, sight or other sensory needs?
- 04How will you check that medicines are given as prescribed and that staff remain competent to administer them?
- 05What improvements are planned for safety equipment, including pendant alarms, in different areas of the home?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and previous ratings were used for the uninspected questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 March 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.
Every inspection of Ross Court Care Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 November 2013.
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
11 live-in carers within about an hour of Herefordshire, County of
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 £960 to £1,410 a week. 10 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.