CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Scarborough House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- 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.
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.
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
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently helping residents keep in touch with family and friends?
- 02How often are staff tested, and what happens if a staff member tests positive?
- 03How do you check that staff are using PPE correctly?
- 04How often are high-touch areas cleaned, and who checks the cleaning records?
- 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.
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.
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
Recruitment records were incomplete
needs fixingSome 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 fixingThe 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
- 01Have all staff recruitment files now been checked for complete employment histories and recorded identity checks?
- 02What changes were made after the inspection to make sure recruitment audits identify missing information?
- 03What is the current registration status of the manager with the CQC?
- 04How do you make sure staffing levels are increased if a person receiving end-of-life care wishes not to be left alone?
- 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.
Every inspection of Scarborough House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- 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.
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
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.
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.