CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ruckland Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough trained staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines systems and good infection control. Risks were assessed and reviewed, although some records needed more detail.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this inspection, although people and relatives spoke positively about the kindness and support of staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this inspection. Inspectors did note that people were involved in decisions about their care and the running of the home.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive leadership, regular quality checks and an open approach to complaints and significant events. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to share their views.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and good leadership, with some care records and meeting notes needing more detail.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 June 2021 by two inspectors. They spoke with people living in the home, staff, relatives and a health and social care professional. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe was rated Good and well-led was rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines systems and good infection control. They found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from the concerns that prompted the inspection.
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff and manager. Inspectors found that people were involved in decisions about their care and the running of the home. The home had systems to check quality and make improvements, although some risk records and staff meeting notes needed more detail.
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and wishes. Staff had relevant training and recruitment checks were completed.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were given by trained staff, stored safely and supported in line with people's preferences.
“People were supported to take their medicines in the way they preferred.” from the report
Positive relationships
People and relatives spoke highly of the staff and manager. Inspectors saw respectful and dignified care.
“We saw staff had developed positive relationships with people and their relatives and ensured they were treated with respect and dignity.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager and area manager carried out regular checks on care, risks and incidents. The home used these checks to make improvements.
“Systems were in place to monitor the quality and effectiveness of the services provided for people.” from the report
Some risk records needed more detail
needs fixingThe manager recognised that some risk assessments and review records did not fully describe the support people received. Plans were in place to improve them.
“The registered manager was aware that some risk management plans, and review records required additional detail to fully reflect the support people received.” from the report
Meeting notes could be clearer
minorLessons were shared with staff, but records of staff meeting discussions did not always clearly show what had been learned.
“The registered manager acknowledged the minutes of staff meeting could better reflect lessons learnt discussions.” from the report
- 01Which risk assessments and review records needed more detail, and have they now been updated?
- 02How do you record and share lessons from accidents, incidents and medicines errors with staff?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels continue to match people's changing needs?
- 04How can residents and relatives raise concerns or comment on meals and care?
- 05What improvements have been made since the last inspection published on 29 October 2018?
This was a focused inspection prompted by concerns about leadership and safety; inspectors assessed Safe and Well-led, while the other key question ratings were not given in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 July 2021 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, October 2018
Ruckland Court is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with a few issues needing attention.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 05 September 2018. Inspectors spoke with five people living at the home, six relatives and four care staff. They also reviewed care records, staffing, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, staffing levels were sufficient during the inspection, and people were treated with kindness and respect.
The home had improved since its previous Requires Improvement rating. It had addressed earlier concerns about window safety, mental capacity decisions and quality checks. A new manager was being inducted, while the existing registered manager had moved into an area manager role.
Inspectors still found some smaller problems. These included staff being unsure how to report safeguarding concerns to outside agencies, complaints about food, one care plan not being updated quickly enough after a hospital discharge, and one staff member wearing nail varnish despite an infection control concern.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were administered safely, with guidance available for medicines given when needed and suitable arrangements for people who self-administered.
“Medicines were managed and administered safely. Each medicine record had a front sheet and allergies were consistently recorded on these.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported people calmly and sensitively. Inspectors saw people being offered choices and treated with dignity during personal care and mobility support.
“People were treated with kindness and were given emotional support when needed.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were based on people's needs, wishes and life history. Activities and community access were available, including trips out and links with local groups.
“Care plans were regularly reviewed and usually reflected people's changing needs and wishes.” from the report
Improved management
The home had introduced effective quality checks and completed actions from the previous inspection. People, relatives and staff were given opportunities to influence improvements.
“Quality assurance processes were effective in identifying shortfalls in the care people received and improving the quality of care.” from the report
Safeguarding knowledge
needs fixingTwo staff members were unsure how to report safeguarding issues to outside agencies such as the local authority. The manager said this would be addressed.
“However, two staff we spoke with were unclear about how to report issues to external agencies such as the local authority.” from the report
Food complaints
needs fixingSeveral people complained about the food during the inspection. The manager said this would be discussed with the cook and with people living at the home.
“We observed during lunchtime several people complained about the food.” from the report
Care plan update
needs fixingOne care plan did not yet reflect a person's increased needs after leaving hospital. Staff could explain how to support the person, but the record needed updating.
“One care plan we looked at had not been updated to reflect a person's recent changing needs.” from the report
Infection control
minorAn infection control audit had identified staff wearing nail varnish as an issue. Inspectors saw one staff member wearing it during the visit.
“one member of staff was wearing nail varnish.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure every staff member knows how to report safeguarding concerns to the local authority or another outside agency?
- 02What changes have been made to improve the food, and how can residents request more flexible meal choices?
- 03How quickly are care plans updated when someone returns from hospital or their needs change suddenly?
- 04How do you maintain safe staffing levels when staff are off sick, and how often is this checked?
- 05Has the new manager registered with CQC, and who is responsible for managing the home now?
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection covering all five question areas and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 October 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 Ruckland Court
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 October 2015.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.