CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Skelton Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were safe. They found arrangements for PPE, testing, visitors, cleaning, social distancing and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed as a separate question in this targeted inspection, although inspectors noted infection control audits and action plans.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control. It checked whether the home was following safe arrangements during the coronavirus pandemic. The inspection was announced shortly before entry.
Inspectors found suitable arrangements for visitors, testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing and self-isolation. Staff had extra infection control training, and inspectors saw them using protective equipment correctly.
The home used zoning, extra cleaning and infection control audits. Inspectors said they were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were safe.
The overall service and safe ratings were recorded as inspected but not rated. This means the visit checked infection control rather than giving a full quality rating.
Visitor safety
Professional visitors had temperature checks, a risk questionnaire, hand sanitisation and masks. Plans were also being developed for visits by relatives.
“Safe arrangements were in place for professional visitors to the service.” from the report
PPE and training
Staff had extra training in infection control and PPE. Inspectors saw staff using PPE correctly, and supplies were available.
“Staff had received additional training in infection prevention and control and how to use personal protective equipment (PPE) properly.” from the report
Testing and staffing
Regular COVID-19 testing was in place for staff and residents. The home did not use agency workers, and permanent staff did not work in other care settings.
“There was a regular programme of COVID-19 testing in place for staff and people using the service.” from the report
Cleaning and zoning
The home used red and green zones, extra cleaning and deep cleaning after periods of self-isolation. Inspectors found infection control audits and action plans were in place.
“Cleaning schedules were in place and updated to included additional cleaning which took place during the pandemic period.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits by relatives being managed now, and what visitor safety checks are still required?
- 02How often are staff and residents tested, and what happens after a positive result?
- 03How does the home use zoning and self-isolation when someone may have an infection?
- 04How often are high-touch areas and rooms cleaned, and how are deep cleans checked?
- 05What actions have resulted from the infection prevention and control audits?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; it was not a full assessment of the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 January 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, January 2020
Skelton Court was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 2 December 2019. The inspectors spoke with four people living at the home, two family members and five staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment and supervision records, and management information.
The overall rating was Good. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, clean premises, personalised support and positive relationships between people and staff.
The report identified some improvements needed in recording how decisions about people's mental capacity had been reached. End of life wishes had also not been fully explored with everyone. The last inspection, published in June 2017, had also rated the home Good.
Enough staff and safe recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Recruitment records showed checks had been completed before staff worked with people.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw warm relationships, respect for privacy and support that encouraged independence.
“Positive interaction between people and staff was evident throughout our inspection.” from the report
Capacity decisions were not always fully recorded
needs fixingInspectors said improvements were needed in recording how decisions about people's capacity had been reached. The manager said action would be taken.
“We found improvements could be made to the recording of how decisions relating to people's capacity had been arrived at.” from the report
End of life wishes were not fully explored
needs fixingRecords did not fully cover end of life care for everyone. The report says this was partly because some people might not understand the subject or might find it distressing.
“People's records regarding end of life care had not been fully explored with everyone” from the report
Larger than current best practice guidance
minorThe home was larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the design of the building helped prevent this having a negative impact on people.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to how you record decisions about a person's mental capacity?
- 02How do you discuss and record end of life wishes for people who may find the subject difficult or distressing?
- 03How do you make sure the size of the home does not reduce people's choice, freedom or personal attention?
- 04How many staff are normally on duty, including any additional funded staffing hours?
- 05How are people's views and family feedback used to make improvements?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home, including the premises and care provided, and it assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 January 2020 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 Skelton Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 June 2016.
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.