CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Scalford Court Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Scalford Court Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found generally good infection control with some cleaning records needing improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 07 February 2022. It was a targeted inspection during a COVID-19 outbreak, focused on infection prevention and control and staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured that people were admitted safely, staff used protective equipment properly, testing was available and visitors were managed safely. The home was also meeting the COVID-19 vaccination requirements for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals.
People were supported to keep in touch with family through window visits, telephone calls and video calls. There was also a staffed isolation area for people who found it difficult to isolate in their bedrooms.
The service was inspected but not rated. Inspectors found that some cleaning records did not show that all required cleaning had taken place, so new cleaning schedules were introduced during the inspection.
Contact with relatives
Staff helped people keep in touch with friends and family during the outbreak through several types of visit and communication.
“During the COVID-19 outbreak, staff had supported people to maintain contact with friends and family via window visits, telephone calls and video calls.” from the report
Visitor infection checks
Visitors had to provide a negative lateral flow test and were given instructions about protective equipment. A handwashing basin was also installed at the entrance.
“All visitors were required to show a negative Lateral Flow Device (LFD) test result before they entered the service.” from the report
Vaccination checks
The home used an electronic system to check the COVID-19 vaccination status of visiting professionals and met the relevant vaccination requirement.
“The service was meeting the requirement to ensure non-exempt staff and visiting professionals were vaccinated against COVID-19.” from the report
Cleaning records
needs fixingRecords did not always show that all required cleaning had been completed. The registered manager introduced new cleaning schedules during the inspection.
“However, records did not always evidence all required cleaning had been undertaken.” from the report
Isolation room door
minorInspectors saw that the bedroom door of a person isolating was open. The manager addressed this promptly and it was later observed to be closed.
“We observed the bedroom door of a person isolating to be open.” from the report
- 01How are the new cleaning schedules checked, and can you show us recent completed records?
- 02How do you support residents who find it difficult to isolate in their bedrooms?
- 03What arrangements are currently in place for visits and contact with relatives?
- 04How do you check COVID-19 vaccination or exemption status for visiting professionals?
- 05How do you manage staffing pressures during outbreaks?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures during a COVID-19 outbreak; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 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.
What inspectors found, August 2021
Overall Good; inspectors found people were protected and the home was well managed, but staffing levels and some risk records needed closer attention.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 16 June 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led, after concerns about incidents involving possible harm and staff recruitment. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Good for Well-led. Inspectors found no evidence that people had been harmed. Staff knew people well, safeguarding systems were in place, medicines were managed safely, and infection control measures were followed, including measures relating to COVID-19.
There were some shortfalls. The home did not use a systematic method to decide how many staff were needed, and some risk assessments lacked important details about equipment. Some furniture was also difficult to clean because it was stained or damaged. The overall rating remained Good because the other areas were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward.
Protection from abuse
Safeguarding systems were in place. Incidents were reported, investigated and followed up to reduce the risk of harm.
“People continued to be protected from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored securely, records were robust, and staff had training and competency checks.
“Medicines were stored securely and supported by robust records.” from the report
Infection control
The premises were clean and well maintained overall. Staff followed safe practices for protective equipment, isolation, testing and vaccinations.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Open management
Regular audits were used to monitor the service. People, relatives and staff could give feedback, and managers acted on concerns.
“Audits to monitor and improve the service were completed regularly.” from the report
Staffing cover
needs fixingThe home had enough staff at the time of the inspection, but it did not have a systematic way to decide staffing levels or regularly adjust them as people's needs changed. People sometimes had to wait for help, particularly when the home was short staffed.
“The provider did not have a systematic approach to determine the numbers of staff required to keep people safe at all times.” from the report
Risk assessment detail
needs fixingSome risk assessments did not state the specific equipment staff should use, such as the type of hoist or sling. The manager said these records were being updated.
“Some risk assessments required further detail to provide relevant information for staff to keep people safe.” from the report
Damaged furniture
minorSome fabric chairs were heavily stained and another was ripped. This made effective cleaning and sanitising harder.
“Some fabric armchairs were heavily stained and a moulded armchair was ripped.” from the report
- 01How do you now calculate the number of staff needed, including cover for sickness or other unplanned absences?
- 02Have all moving and handling risk assessments been updated with the exact hoist and sling equipment required?
- 03What action was taken about the stained and ripped furniture, and has it been replaced or made easier to clean?
- 04What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous comprehensive inspection?
- 05How will you make sure people do not have to wait too long for help when the home is short staffed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 August 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.
Every inspection of Scalford Court Care Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.