CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sherwood Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People appeared comfortable and relaxed, and staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Risk assessments, staffing, recruitment checks and medicines management were found to be suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had appropriate training and support. People were asked for consent, communication aids were used, and people received suitable food and access to healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and compassionate interactions. Staff knew people's preferences and maintained their privacy and dignity.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, personalised and regularly reviewed. People were supported with behaviour, activities, trips, interests and making complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager promoted a person-centred culture and listened to people's and relatives' views. Audits and action plans were used to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, January 2018
Sherwood Court was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 4 October 2017. One inspector spoke with one resident, a visiting relative, the manager and two support staff. Records and audits were also checked.
The home supported eight people with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum disorders. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines practice, suitable risk assessments and correct checks when recruiting staff.
People were treated with kindness and their care was personalised. They were supported with choices, food, healthcare, activities and communication. Inspectors found strong leadership and systems to monitor quality.
The home remained Good, which was the same rating as at the previous inspection in May 2015. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences and life histories. Staff also used detailed positive approaches to support behaviour and reduce reliance on medicines where appropriate.
“Care plans had been written in a personalised way for each individual and were reviewed regularly.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff knew people well and spent time with them. Inspectors saw positive, respectful interactions and said privacy and dignity were maintained.
“It was obvious from our observations that people were treated with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff with the right skills, recruitment checks were completed before staff started, and medicine records and stock checks were accurate.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs safely and the rota showed this was consistently the case.” from the report
Choice and activities
People were supported to choose food, communicate their wishes and take part in activities, trips and local outings.
“People participated in a variety of activities on a daily basis along with visiting entertainers and planned trips and events.” from the report
Strong leadership
The manager promoted a person-centred culture. Regular meetings, surveys and audits helped the service listen to views and identify improvements.
“A number of quality audits had been carried out.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing their personalised care plan?
- 02How do you use communication aids to make sure my relative can express choices and give consent?
- 03How do you review risk assessments so my relative can remain as independent as possible?
- 04What activities, day services and local outings would be available for my relative?
- 05How would you respond if my relative's behaviour or support needs changed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions; the previous inspection took place in May 2015 and the home remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 January 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 Sherwood Court
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: 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 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.