CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Teme Court Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People and relatives felt safe, risks were assessed, staffing was reviewed and medicines were managed safely. The home was clean and incidents were reviewed for learning.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, staff received relevant training and supervision, and health, nutrition and consent needs were supported.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful. People were supported to make choices, remain as independent as possible and have their privacy protected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and kept up to date. People had access to activities, community outings and support at the end of life, although further activity improvements were planned.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were approachable and quality checks had become effective. People, relatives and staff were invited to give feedback, and the home acted on learning and improvements.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Teme Court Residential Care rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with further activities improvements planned.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 January 2020. The inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, staff records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives said they were happy with the care and felt safe. Inspectors found that staff knew people's needs, treated them kindly and supported their choices.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when the overall rating was Requires Improvement. Care plans, infection control, staffing reviews, mental capacity records and quality checks had all improved. Activities were continuing to develop, with plans to recruit an activity coordinator and buy an interactive table.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe, and staff understood how to identify and report possible abuse. Risks were assessed and staff knew how to support people safely.
“People and relatives, spoken with were confident people were safe living at the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with kindness, protected their dignity and supported them to make everyday choices. They also encouraged people to remain independent.
“Staff were kind to people and took action when they raised concerns about their health.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans contained detailed information about people's needs and preferences. Staff knew the people they supported and were updated about changes at the start of shifts.
“People's care plans held detailed information which was accurate and personal to each person.” from the report
Improved management
The home had strengthened its quality checks since the previous inspection. Managers used these checks and reviews of incidents to make further improvements.
“During this inspection the quality checks undertaken were effective.” from the report
Good health and end-of-life support
Staff worked with health professionals and supported people's nutritional, medical and oral health needs. They also respected people's wishes at the end of life.
“Staff had liaised with other agencies to ensure all medical care was available.” from the report
Activities still developing
minorThe home was continuing to improve recreational opportunities. This may be worth checking if activities and time outside the home are important to your relative.
“The registered manager was continuing to make improvements to the opportunities people had in relation to recreational activities to support people's well-being.” from the report
- 01What activities are available each week, and when will the activity coordinator be recruited?
- 02How do you make sure people who need staff support can take part in activities and community outings?
- 03How do you review staffing levels when there are unplanned gaps?
- 04How are care plans updated when a person's needs change, and how are changes shared with staff at each shift?
- 05How do you check that medicines, including as-required medicines, are given safely and recorded correctly?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the home environment and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 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.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found clear progress and caring staff, but important safety, care planning and management work was still unfinished.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 18 December 2018. Inspectors spoke with six people living at the home, five relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were also Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good. Inspectors found improvements since the previous inspection, including better staff training, dignity, medicines support, mealtimes and quality checks.
The work was not yet complete or proven to last. Inspectors found infection control and parts of the building still needed attention. Care plans did not always give clear, personalised guidance, and records about some mental capacity decisions were not always clear.
The home had previously been rated Inadequate and placed in special measures. It was no longer Inadequate or in special measures at this inspection. A restriction on admitting new residents had helped reduce numbers, so inspectors could not fully test whether staffing would remain safe if the home became fuller.
Respectful care
People and relatives said staff were caring. Inspectors saw staff protect privacy, promote independence and offer choices.
“People who lived at the home and relatives told us, and we saw, staff consistently treated people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Improved safety
People said they felt safe. Staff understood how to reduce risks, and staffing levels met people's needs during the inspection.
“During our inspection, we saw there were a sufficient number of staff on duty to respond to people's needs and requests.” from the report
Better mealtimes
People had meal choices, drinks and snacks. Staff were available to provide support, and meals were described as unrushed and social.
“We saw mealtimes were unrushed and social events, during which people were supported by staff.” from the report
Improved management checks
The provider and new manager had introduced checks covering care records, mealtimes and the environment.
“They had taken steps to develop and improve the overall effectiveness and consistency of their quality checks” from the report
Infection control
needs fixingCommunal toilets and a shower room still had issues that could increase infection risks. These included loose toilet rolls and items needing removal.
“more could be done to further reduce the spread of infections.” from the report
Care records
needs fixingCare plans did not always clearly describe people's individual needs, preferences or equipment support. This could make care less consistent.
“care plans were being updated as they did not always show they were centred on the needs and preferences of each person.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingRecords did not always clearly show whether specific decisions had been made lawfully by representatives with the right authority.
“the documentation was not always clear as to whether each specific decision had been made by representatives who had the legal powers to do this.” from the report
Activities and end of life planning
minorThe home was developing activities, but a regular programme was still at an early stage. Care records included funeral wishes but lacked enough detail about end of life care preferences.
“there was a lack of information to show people's preferences for their end of life care.” from the report
- 01What has been done to improve infection control in the communal toilets and shower rooms?
- 02How are care plans checked to make sure they accurately record each person's needs, preferences and equipment support?
- 03How do you check that staff put their training into practice, including cleaning equipment after use?
- 04How are mental capacity assessments and best interests decisions recorded, including the authority of representatives?
- 05What regular activities and end of life planning are now available and recorded for each person?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including care, the premises, medicines, staffing, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 January 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 Teme Court Residential Care Home
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Teme Court Residential Care Home →
- January 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Teme Court Residential Care Home →
- July 2018Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2017Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 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 Worcestershire
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 £1,260 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.