CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Russell Churcher Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed. This included safe use of protective equipment, testing, isolation, cleaning and arrangements for visitors.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control during a recent COVID-19 outbreak.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 18 December 2020. It looked at infection prevention and control because the home had recently experienced a COVID-19 outbreak.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, arranged regular testing, followed shielding and social distancing rules, and managed the outbreak. They also found enough protective equipment, hand sanitiser and cleaning supplies.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a full rating for all five areas of care.
COVID-19 outbreak management
The provider followed risk assessments and care plans, and isolated people and staff with positive tests or symptoms in line with government guidance.
“A recent outbreak of COVID-19 was well managed.” from the report
Protective equipment and supplies
Inspectors found sufficient stocks of masks, gloves, aprons, visors, hand sanitiser and cleaning materials.
“There were sufficient stocks of PPE in the home.” from the report
Keeping families connected
When visits were restricted, people were supported to stay in touch with relatives by telephone and video links. A screened visiting pod had also been built.
“People were supported to keep in touch with their relatives via telephone calls or video links which helped maintain their wellbeing.” from the report
Testing and staff training
People and staff had regular COVID-19 testing, and staff had training in infection prevention and the safe use of protective equipment.
“People and staff underwent regular COVID-19 testing in line with government guidance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the current visiting policy, and when can relatives use the visiting pod?
- 02How are people supported to keep in touch with relatives if visits are restricted?
- 03How often are people and staff tested for COVID-19, and how are positive results managed?
- 04How are new admissions assessed and kept safe from infection?
- 05What arrangements are in place to manage another outbreak or staff shortage?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not provide a full rating of the home or assess all five areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 January 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, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 11 and 12 March 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines 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, suitable training and care plans that reflected people's needs and choices.
The previous inspection, published in March 2019, rated the home Requires Improvement and found several legal breaches. This inspection found that the provider had improved and was no longer in breach of the regulations.
Risk management
Risk assessments covered issues such as falls, weight loss and skin condition. They were reviewed and updated when people's needs changed.
“Personalised risk assessments were in place, they considered risks to people from the environment as well as risks to the individual such as weight loss, falls and skin condition.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, induction, training and supervision were in place.
“There were enough staff available to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, histories, relationships, communication needs and health needs. Staff supported people to follow their preferred routines.
“Care was person centred. Choice and preferences, culture, eating, drinking, life history, relationships communication and health were all considered and planned into care.” from the report
Activities and community life
People could join activities at the home and access local places. Inspectors found examples of activities being adapted around individual interests.
“People accessed the community and visited local amenities.” from the report
Management oversight
The management team used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor the service and make improvements.
“Detailed and robust audits were carried out by the registered manager and the nominated individual.” from the report
Hearing support still being explored
minorThe home was still looking into installing a loop system for people with hearing difficulties. Ask whether this has now been provided and what other communication support is available.
“The registered manager told us they were currently looking into a loop system in the home for people who had hearing difficulties.” from the report
- 01Has the planned loop system for people with hearing difficulties now been installed?
- 02How are staffing levels reviewed when people's needs change?
- 03How are medicines given when needed, such as pain relief, monitored and reviewed?
- 04What refurbishment work remains, and how are residents involved in decisions about it?
- 05Has the home completed its planned Gold Standards Framework accreditation for end-of-life care?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five CQC questions and checking improvements required after the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 April 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.
Every inspection of Russell Churcher Court
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 March 2017.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.