CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Scraptoft Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, risks were robustly assessed and reviewed, and medicines and staff recruitment were managed safely. Inspectors suggested more detail in PRN medicines protocols and maintenance to chipped handrails.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and support. People received food and drink suited to their needs, had access to healthcare, and were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with respect, care and compassion. Staff supported people's diversity, privacy, dignity, independence and relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were highly personalised and staff knew people's needs and preferences. Communication needs, activities, complaints and end-of-life wishes were addressed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective audits and oversight, and people, relatives and staff said it was well-led. Feedback was acted on, including changes to the menu and extra housekeeping support.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor improvements suggested for medicines guidance and handrails.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 and 8 September 2023. Three inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also checked care plans, medicines records, mental capacity records, rotas, audits, cleaning schedules and meal records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, medicines were managed safely, staffing and recruitment checks were suitable, and risks were assessed and reviewed.
People received respectful and personalised care. Staff supported people with food, communication, activities, healthcare and relationships. The home had good links with healthcare professionals, investigated complaints and used feedback to make changes.
Inspectors suggested two improvements. PRN medicines protocols contained only basic information, and some wooden handrails had chipped paint that made them harder to clean. These suggestions did not change the Good ratings.
Good safety systems
Risks were assessed in detail and reviewed monthly or sooner when needed. Staff understood how to support people with risks such as diabetes, choking and nutrition.
“Risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing had been robustly assessed.” from the report
Respectful care
Inspectors saw kind interactions and found that staff respected people's dignity, privacy, independence, diversity and communication preferences.
“People were treated with respect, care and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected individual needs and preferences. Staff took time to understand people, including those who could not easily communicate their needs.
“People's care plans were highly personalised to ensure they received care and support which was specific to their own needs and requirements.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could choose from a wide range of activities and were supported to maintain contact with family and friends. The home also provided a garden that people could use freely.
“A dedicated activities coordinator had been employed to offer people with the opportunity to take part in activities each day.” from the report
Responsive leadership
The home acted on feedback from people, relatives and staff. This included changing the menu and adding housekeeping support after concerns about cleanliness.
“People's views and concerns were acted upon when they provided feedback.” from the report
PRN medicines guidance
minorProtocols for medicines taken as and when needed were in place but contained only basic information. Inspectors recommended reviewing them and adding more detail where possible.
“We found protocols were in place, however, only contained basic information.” from the report
Chipped handrails
minorSome wooden handrails in communal areas had chipped paint. This exposed porous wood and made the handrails more difficult to keep clean.
“We observed some wooden handrails with chipped paint, which exposed porous wood.” from the report
- 01What extra details have been added to the PRN medicines protocols since the inspection?
- 02Have all the communal wooden handrails been repaired and repainted?
- 03How will you make sure care plans and risk assessments remain up to date when a person's needs change?
- 04How are people and relatives involved in reviewing personalised care plans?
- 05How do you use complaints, surveys and meetings to make further improvements?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC question areas, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 September 2023 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 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found care was not always caring because people's dignity and choices were not consistently protected.
Inspectors visited on 17 and 18 July 2018. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, individual care plans, support with food and healthcare, and open management.
Caring was rated Requires Improvement. Staff were usually kind and respectful, but people's dignity was not always protected. Inspectors also found that people were not always properly supported to make choices about their care. A recommendation was made about involving people in decisions.
Safe care
Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and manage risks. Inspectors found suitable staffing and safe arrangements for medicines.
“People were protected from abuse and discrimination because they were supported by staff who knew their responsibilities to keep people safe from avoidable harm and abuse.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received induction, training and regular supervision. Inspectors saw staff adapting their communication to meet people's needs.
“People received care from staff that were knowledgeable and had received the training and support they needed.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People had enough to eat and drink, including support where needed. Staff arranged access to healthcare services and specialist professionals.
“People's nutritional and hydration needs were effectively met.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and routines. Families were involved in care reviews where possible.
“People's care plans reflected their individual needs. The care that they received was suited to their needs.” from the report
Open management
Inspectors found approachable managers and an open culture. Quality checks were used to identify actions and improvements.
“The service had a positive ethos and an open culture.” from the report
Dignity and clothing
needs fixingSome people wore clothes belonging to other residents, despite clothes being labelled. Inspectors also heard about a person waiting a long time for help to use the toilet.
“This shows that staff do not always maintain people's dignity.” from the report
Everyday choices
needs fixingPeople were not always supported well enough to make decisions. One person said staff chose when they went to bed, and another person was not offered visual help when choosing a meal.
“We recommend that the service seek advice and guidance from a reputable source, about supporting people to be involved in decisions about their support.” from the report
Environment
minorSome bathrooms were not accessible and there was limited signage for people with dementia. The building looked tired and planned refurbishment had been delayed because the lift needed major repair.
“The environment was beginning to look tired and in need of redecoration.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure residents wear their own clothes and that misplaced clothing is returned?
- 02How do you prevent people waiting too long for help to use the toilet?
- 03How do you help people with dementia make choices about meals, bedtimes and daily routines?
- 04What progress has been made with the refurbishment, accessible bathrooms and dementia-friendly signs?
- 05Has the second activities organiser been replaced, and how are activities provided seven days a week?
This was an inspection of the overall service across all five areas, including care, staffing, medicines, records, management and the environment. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 August 2018 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 Scraptoft Court Care Home
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 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 Leicester
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 £1,270 a week. 83 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.”
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing carer.”
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.