CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Southlands Court Residential Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Southlands Court Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 27 June and 2 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with eight people, one relative and nine staff. They observed care and reviewed care files, staff records, training records and other documents.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were safe, medicines were managed properly, care was personalised, and staff were trained and caring.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in July 2018. The earlier concerns were about staffing at some times, incomplete risk assessments, staff knowledge and recording best-interest decisions. The report says these improvements had been made, and the home was not in breach of regulations at the previous inspection.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and supported. Staff understood safeguarding and knew how to report concerns.
“I feel very safe with the staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's histories, preferences and needs. Staff knew how people wanted to be supported.
“Staff knew people very well and provided care and support which was person centred and took account of their needs and wishes.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw caring relationships. Staff supported people's dignity, choices and independence.
“Staff relationships with people were caring and supportive.” from the report
Good staff training
Staff had induction, ongoing training, supervision and appraisals. Training covered safeguarding, dementia, nutrition, moving and positioning and other individual needs.
“People said the staff were well trained and competent in their jobs.” from the report
Improved management
The home had introduced audits covering care, risks, incidents, staffing, safety and cleanliness. Actions identified by these audits were followed up.
“Robust audits had been implemented following guidance from the Quality Assurance Improvement Team (QAIT) of the local authority.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure there are enough familiar staff on duty when someone is off sick?
- 02How often will my relative's risk assessments and care plans be reviewed if their needs change?
- 03How will you support my relative with food, drink or swallowing needs if these change?
- 04What activities would suit my relative's interests, and how often could they join them?
- 05How would you involve our family if a best-interest decision about care was needed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, following the previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 August 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.
What inspectors found, July 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; care was kind and responsive, but staffing, risk assessments and decision records still needed improvement after an earlier Inadequate rating and special measures.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 24 May 2018. Inspectors spoke with people, a relative, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff records, training and quality checks.
The home had improved greatly since the previous inspection in September 2017. People were treated with kindness and respect, medicines were managed safely, care plans were more personal, and complaints and quality monitoring systems were in place.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Effective were rated Requires Improvement. Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Some staff were rushed, some health risk assessments were incomplete, and not all best-interest decisions had been recorded.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found staff to be caring, polite and respectful. People were involved in everyday choices and their privacy was protected.
“Staff treated people with dignity and respect when helping them with daily living tasks.” from the report
Safer medicines
Medicines were given by trained staff and records, storage and checks were found to be effective.
“People received their prescribed medicines on time and in a safe way.” from the report
Personalised care plans
New care plans described people's needs, preferences and choices more clearly. People and families were involved in planning care.
“The registered manager had implemented new care plans which were person centred and reflected people's needs.” from the report
Improved leadership and checks
The provider had introduced regular audits and an improvement plan. Inspectors found that an earlier requirement about quality monitoring had been met.
“At this inspection we found the provider had continued to monitor the quality of the service and the requirement had been met.” from the report
Staff sometimes rushed
needs fixingThere were enough staff for most of the inspection, but staff were sometimes very busy and overwhelmed. Planned increases in evening and lunchtime staffing had not yet been put in place.
“At times during our visit staff seemed very busy and overwhelmed with what was required of them.” from the report
Incomplete risk assessments
needs fixingSome people's health risk assessments, particularly those relating to nutrition, were not complete. The manager was working to address this, and inspectors found no adverse impact at the time.
“People were not always protected because risks for each person were not always assessed.” from the report
Some decisions not recorded
needs fixingThe home was following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, but records did not always show the best-interest decisions that had been made.
“The registered manager had undertaken best interest decisions involving relevant people. However these had not always been recorded.” from the report
- 01What staffing levels are now in place at lunchtime and in the evening, and how do you cover sickness or leave?
- 02Have all residents' health risk assessments, especially nutrition assessments, now been completed and reviewed?
- 03How do you record best-interest decisions for people who cannot make particular decisions themselves?
- 04Have all staff completed Mental Capacity Act and mandatory training, and are staff supervisions up to date?
- 05How are you checking that the improvements found after the 2017 inspection have been sustained?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and checking progress since the earlier inspections. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 July 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 Southlands Court Residential Home
4 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Southlands Court Residential Home →
- July 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Southlands Court Residential Home →
- January 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 September 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.