CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Rush Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, with enough staff and effective systems for managing risks, accidents and medicines. Inspectors found that protocols for some as-required medicines were not always in place, but immediate action was taken.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and support. People received appropriate food, fluids and healthcare, and staff followed guidance from health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful. People were involved in decisions about their care, and staff supported their dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People were offered choices and activities, and complaints were investigated. Care plans were not always personalised, and more social contact was needed for people who stayed in their rooms.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The new registered manager had introduced audits and clear improvement plans. Staff felt valued, and the home sought feedback from people, relatives and staff.
What inspectors found, May 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but some care plans were not personalised or fully up to date.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 10 and 11 March 2020. Two inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They also reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, kind care, good access to health professionals and a positive management culture.
There were some areas to improve. Care plans were not always personalised and sometimes contained conflicting information. There were also gaps in records for some as-required medicines and end of life care. The home had identified these issues and had plans to address them.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. There were enough staff, and staff understood how to report concerns about harm or abuse.
“People felt safe living at Rush Court. People were supported by sufficient staff who knew how to report all concerns relating to harm and abuse.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and caring. Staff knew people well, respected their individuality and supported their dignity and independence.
“People were supported by staff who were kind and compassionate.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People were positive about the food and had suitable choices. The home supported people to see health professionals when needed.
“People were complimentary about the quality of the food and the choices made available.” from the report
Positive leadership
The new manager had identified areas for improvement and put plans in place. Staff said they felt valued and listened to.
“There was a person-centred culture that ensured people were at the centre of all the service did.” from the report
As-required medicine records
needs fixingProtocols were not always in place for people prescribed as-required medicines. The manager took immediate action during the inspection.
“There were not always protocols in place where people were prescribed 'as required' medicines.” from the report
Care plans were not always personal
needs fixingSome care plans were not personalised and included conflicting information. The home had started a review process with people and their families.
“People's care plans were not always personalised and contained some conflicting information.” from the report
End of life records
needs fixingOne person's care plan did not show that they were receiving end of life care. The home also had not achieved the Gold Standards Framework accreditation it had been working towards.
“However, the person's care plan did not reflect their end of life status.” from the report
Social contact in rooms
minorInspectors found that more needed to be done to improve social interaction for people who remained in their rooms.
“The registered manager had identified that more needed to be done to improve the social interactions for people in their rooms and was looking at ways to achieve this.” from the report
- 01How have you updated care plans so they are personalised and no longer contain conflicting information?
- 02Are protocols now in place for every person's as-required medicine?
- 03How do you record and review end of life care plans?
- 04What has changed to improve social contact for people who spend much of their time in their rooms?
- 05How are you working to restart the Gold Standards Framework accreditation process?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous inspection rated the service Outstanding overall, with Caring and Responsive now rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 May 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, August 2017
Rated Outstanding; inspectors found exceptionally caring and responsive support, with safe medicines and good staffing, training and management.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 4 and 13 July 2017. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and records about how the home was managed. They also observed care.
The home was rated Outstanding overall. Caring and Responsive were Outstanding. Safe, Effective and Well-led were Good. Inspectors found people received compassionate, personalised care and were supported to enjoy activities, community links and meaningful relationships.
The home had improved its medicines management since the June 2015 inspection. Inspectors found medicines were now managed safely. They also found enough staff overall, although some people said they sometimes waited too long for call bells to be answered.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm, compassionate interactions. Staff knew people well, respected their choices and treated them as individuals.
“We saw many kind and compassionate interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities reflected people's past interests and preferences. The home supported outings, hobbies and links with the local community.
“There was a wide range of social activities arranged by a team of social engagement staff.” from the report
Responsive support
The home acted when people's needs or circumstances changed. Examples included changing a person's room and helping a new resident settle.
“The service was extremely responsive to people's changing needs.” from the report
End-of-life care
People and families were supported with empathy at the end of life. Staff worked with specialist services to manage pain and maintain dignity.
“This ensured people experienced a dignified and pain free death.” from the report
Improved medicines management
The medicines problem identified at the previous inspection had been addressed. Records and checks were in place to support safe administration.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and people received their medicines safely.” from the report
Call bell waiting times
needs fixingSome people felt there were not enough staff because they waited longer than acceptable for call bells to be answered. The manager monitored waits of ten minutes or more.
“Although some people felt there were not enough staff as they had to wait longer than acceptable for call bells to be answered” from the report
Uneven garden paths
minorA relative had raised concerns about uneven paths around the garden. The report says this was being addressed at the time.
“One relative told us they had raised concerns about the uneven paths around the garden. This was in the process of being addressed.” from the report
- 01How quickly are call bells answered now, and how do you investigate any waits of ten minutes or more?
- 02What action was taken about the uneven paths around the garden, and have they now been made safe?
- 03How do you continue to check that medicines are recorded, balanced and administered safely?
- 04How will you tailor activities and outings to my relative's interests and changing needs?
- 05How are families involved in decisions and in raising concerns about care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 August 2017 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 Rush Court
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2020Goodcurrent ratingdown from OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 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
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.