CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Shaftesbury John Grooms Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and outbreak management.
- 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?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Shaftesbury John Grooms Court had a targeted inspection; infection control was assured, but the service was not rated.
This was an announced inspection on 18 March 2021. It was targeted because of the COVID-19 pandemic and looked at infection prevention and control in the home.
Inspectors were assured that visitors were protected from infection, social distancing and shielding rules were followed, and new admissions were safe. They were also assured about the use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning, outbreak arrangements and infection control policies.
The home was not given an overall rating or a rating for safe care. This report gives a limited picture because it focused only on infection prevention and control.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures to reduce the risk of infection for people living there, staff and visitors.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Safe use of PPE
Inspectors found that protective equipment was being used safely and effectively.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Support for visitors
A staff member took time to show a relative how to remove protective equipment after their first indoor visit.
“A staff member was observed taking time with a relative who was leaving after their first visit, patiently explaining how to take off personal protective equipment (PPE) by showing them.” from the report
Maintaining activities
The home arranged themed events and a delayed Christmas celebration when people could not go out or celebrate normally because of COVID-19.
“Staff secretly organised a re-arranged Christmas Day at the end of February which was a total surprise and the people really enjoyed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently protected from catching or spreading infections?
- 02How do you currently use and provide personal protective equipment for visitors and staff?
- 03How are people and staff tested for infections now?
- 04What is the current plan for managing an outbreak?
- 05How do you safely admit new people to the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 April 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, December 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, effective, caring and responsive support, but the home was not always well-led.
This was an unannounced inspection on 4 November 2019. Inspectors spoke with 13 people, 10 staff and two visiting professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
People told inspectors they felt safe and that staff were caring. Medicines management, risk assessments and reporting when things went wrong had improved since the previous inspection. There were enough staff to meet assessed care needs, although the home still relied on agency staff.
Inspectors found good support with healthcare, food, communication, activities, privacy and independence. However, some care plans were not complete or fully up to date. There was also disruption from changes in management, and quality checks had not found every problem with the building.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement, meaning management and leadership were inconsistent and more work was needed to make improvements last.
Improved medicines management
Inspectors found systems for ordering, giving and checking medicines. Records and observations showed people received medicines as prescribed.
“There was a system in place for ordering and giving people their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Staff knew people well and supported them with kindness, privacy and dignity. People were involved in decisions about their care.
“We saw staff interacting with people in a kind and compassionate way, we saw staff telling people what they were doing when supporting them” from the report
Support for independence
People were encouraged to do parts of tasks themselves and some people worked, volunteered or attended day services.
“People's independence was promoted by encouraging people to do parts of tasks for themselves if they were able.” from the report
Good response to changing needs
Staff acted quickly when people's needs changed and followed advice from healthcare professionals. Keyworkers helped people attend appointments.
“People's changing needs were responded to quickly.” from the report
Care plans were not always complete
needs fixingSome plans did not contain all the detail staff needed, including information about repositioning, communication tools and end of life wishes. The report recommended that end of life wishes be recorded clearly.
“We recommend that the service review care plans and ensure that people's wishes for care at the end of their life are clearly documented in their care records.” from the report
Unstable management
needs fixingChanges in management had disrupted the home and affected morale. The new managers were working to create a more positive culture, but needed more time to establish the changes.
“Management of the service had not been stable over the past year, this had caused disruption in the service affecting the morale of both people and staff.” from the report
Quality checks missed some problems
needs fixingAudits had improved but did not identify every issue. Inspectors found a hot radiator and damaged flooring, which were dealt with immediately, and some areas needed refurbishment.
“However, these still needed to be properly embedded with the new management as there were issues identified during the inspection such as the hot radiator and damaged flooring that had not been identified in the audits.” from the report
Communal areas needed improvement
minorSome communal spaces lacked soft furnishings and visitor seating. Inspectors said parts of the home appeared stark, with marks, damaged flooring and limescale also noted.
“The result was that some of the communal areas appeared quite stark and did not create a homely and welcoming atmosphere.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans been reviewed so that risk instructions, communication tools and end of life wishes are recorded in one clear place?
- 02How stable is the current management team, and what has been done to improve morale and create a more person-centred culture?
- 03What improvements have been completed to the communal areas, flooring and bathrooms since this inspection?
- 04How do you now check that audits identify environmental problems quickly?
- 05How do you make sure people who want community activities receive enough one-to-one support to take part?
This was an unannounced planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered all five CQC questions; the previous inspection had rated the service Requires Improvement with multiple breaches. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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 Shaftesbury John Grooms Court
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Shaftesbury John Grooms Court →
- December 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Shaftesbury John Grooms Court →
- December 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 November 2010.
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.