Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Scarborough House

Goodpublished 26 October 2019, 6 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place, including PPE, testing, cleaning, visitor arrangements and outbreak management.
Effective?
Good
This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
Caring?
Good
This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
Responsive?
Good
This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
Well-led?
Good
This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, March 2021

Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.

The inspection took place on 24 February 2021 and was announced. It was a targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic, looking at infection prevention and control in the home.

Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, shielding, social distancing, admissions, PPE, testing, cleaning and possible outbreaks. They also found that the infection prevention and control policy was up to date.

The home helped people stay in touch with family and friends through outdoor, window and virtual visits. Staff were tested, trained in using PPE, and supported to isolate when they tested positive.

This inspection was not rated. It does not provide an overall quality rating for the home or ratings for the other four questions.

What inspectors praised
  • Keeping families connected

    The home provided outdoor, window and virtual visits when indoor visits were restricted.

    “An outdoor area had been devised where people could meet their visitors.” from the report
  • PPE and staff testing

    Staff were tested and had access to PPE. They had also received training on putting PPE on and taking it off safely.

    “All staff undertook both PCR and lateral flow tests in order to protect the people they cared for.” from the report
  • Cleaning arrangements

    The home had detailed cleaning schedules and frequent cleaning of high-touch areas.

    “Cleaning schedules were comprehensive and had been updated in light of COVID-19 risks” from the report
  • Infection control checks

    The manager completed an infection control audit and put actions in place to improve prevention measures.

    “The manager had undertaken an extensive infection control audit and actions had been implemented to improve prevention measures.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How are you currently helping residents keep in touch with family and friends?
  2. 02How often are staff tested, and what happens if a staff member tests positive?
  3. 03How do you check that staff are using PPE correctly?
  4. 04How often are high-touch areas cleaned, and who checks the cleaning records?
  5. 05What actions from the infection control audit are still being monitored?

This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, and it was not a full assessment of the home's overall quality. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 March 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, October 2019

Scarborough House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but recruitment records needed improvement.

This was an unannounced inspection on 15 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with five people living at the home, three relatives, five staff members and a healthcare professional. They also observed care and checked care, medicines and management records.

The home received a Good rating in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and received good-quality care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, clean surroundings, suitable training and care that reflected people's choices.

Inspectors found one shortfall in recruitment records. Some staff files did not contain a full employment history, and records of identity checks had not always been kept. The provider said it would change its processes immediately. The overall rating stayed Good, and the previous Good rating from May 2017 remained unchanged.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful staff

    People and relatives consistently described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Inspectors also observed unhurried and considerate support.

    “Without exception, all the people and relatives we spoke with told us staff were kind and caring.” from the report
  • Personalised care

    People's routines, choices, communication needs, hobbies and cultural needs were considered. People and relatives were involved in care planning.

    “People received personalised care that met their individual needs.” from the report
  • Safe medicines and staffing

    Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored and given safely, with staff training and competence checks in place.

    “Medicines were managed safely. People told us they received these when they needed them and the records we looked at confirmed this.” from the report
  • Good healthcare support

    The home worked with health and social care professionals. Inspectors found that staff reported health concerns promptly and followed professional advice.

    “A healthcare professional said staff were quick to report any concerns to them about people's health.” from the report
  • Open culture

    People, relatives and staff were encouraged to give their views. Inspectors found that the provider and manager were approachable and that quality was regularly reviewed.

    “The provider and home manager had instilled an open, inclusive and person-centred culture within the home.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Recruitment records were incomplete

    needs fixing

    Some recruitment files did not contain a full employment history, and identity checks had not always been recorded. The provider said it would change the process immediately.

    “A full employment history had not always been captured as is required.” from the report
  • Audit missed the records problem

    needs fixing

    The recruitment audit did not identify that all required checks had not been recorded before some staff were employed. The provider described this as an oversight and reviewed the monitoring.

    “The audit of recruitment files had failed to notice that not all the required checks on staff had been made prior to them being employed.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Have all staff recruitment files now been checked for complete employment histories and recorded identity checks?
  2. 02What changes were made after the inspection to make sure recruitment audits identify missing information?
  3. 03What is the current registration status of the manager with the CQC?
  4. 04How do you make sure staffing levels are increased if a person receiving end-of-life care wishes not to be left alone?
  5. 05How will you involve my relative in decisions about their care, daily routines, activities and communication needs?

This was an unannounced inspection that considered all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; it found the same Good ratings as the previous inspection published in May 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 October 2019 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Scarborough House

3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent rating
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at Scarborough House →

  2. October 2019Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Scarborough House →

  3. May 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. May 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. December 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. December 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. September 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk

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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.

See live-in carers near NorfolkProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.