CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited on 24 May and 4 June 2019. One inspector looked at the home, care and records, spoke with staff and managers, and gathered views from a relative and staff. They also observed care because not everyone could fully describe their experience.
The home supported three people with learning disabilities or autism. Inspectors found safe systems, trained staff, accurate medicines records, personalised care plans and support for people to make choices and become more independent. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in May 2018. The report says improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach of the regulations mentioned at that inspection.
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's preferences, life histories and support needs. People and relatives were involved in creating and reviewing them.
“Care plans were personalised and designed around the person's needs.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, take positive risks and work towards individual goals. Activities included work, exercise, holidays and social outings.
“People were empowered to make their own decisions and choices.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff understood people's communication and treated them with dignity. They encouraged people to do as much as possible for themselves.
“Staff treated people with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Safe care
Inspectors found safeguarding systems, regular environmental checks, contingency plans and accurate medicines records. Staff were trained and recruitment checks were thorough.
“Medicines records were completed and accurate. These showed people had received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Improvements after the last inspection
The home introduced new documentation and monitoring systems. The previous regulatory problems had been addressed and the home was no longer in breach.
“At this inspection we found enough improvement had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 17.” from the report
Feedback was not brought together
minorThe home asked people, relatives and staff for yearly feedback and responded to individual comments. However, it did not collate the feedback to identify wider improvements.
“Whilst the service responded to individual feedback they did not collate the information to drive improvements in the service.” from the report
- 01How will you collect and use feedback from residents, relatives and staff to make improvements?
- 02How will you make sure my relative's care plan reflects their communication, preferences and personal goals?
- 03What support would my relative receive to attend health appointments and take part in activities they choose?
- 04How do you review medicines and avoid unnecessary medication that affects mood, emotions or behaviour?
- 05What arrangements would be made if my relative needed end-of-life care?
This was a planned inspection covering the home, care and all five CQC questions; end-of-life care was not being provided at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 July 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, May 2018
The Court was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring and responsive support, but concerns about medicines, safeguarding, DoLS records and quality checks.
This was an announced inspection on 26, 28 and 29 March 2018. Inspectors visited the home, spoke with one person, relatives, managers and staff, observed care, and checked records, training, recruitment and the building. They also contacted local organisations and safeguarding teams.
The home was rated Good for Caring and Responsive. Staff knew people well, treated them with dignity, supported independence and helped them take part in activities, education, work, holidays and community life. Care plans were personalised and relatives said they were involved.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement, down from Good at the previous inspection. Inspectors found that one medicine was sometimes given after breakfast rather than as prescribed. They also found delays and weak records around safeguarding concerns and DoLS applications, and quality checks had not identified these problems.
The home had enough trained staff, suitable recruitment checks, risk assessments and safety checks. A registered manager was in place and was described as approachable, but the provider was in breach of Regulation 17 because its systems and records were not reliable enough.
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors observed friendly interactions. Relatives said staff were caring, welcoming and kept them informed.
“During our inspection we observed friendly interactions between staff and people using the service.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included detailed information about each person's needs, wishes, communication and goals. Staff supported people in the way they preferred.
“Support plans contained comprehensive personalised information about the person's needs and wishes.” from the report
Independence and activities
People were supported to develop life skills, make choices and take part in activities such as college, work, exercise and holidays.
“People were supported to maintain their interests and develop life skills to become more independent.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found sufficient staff were available and recruitment checks were carried out. Staff had completed relevant training and received supervision.
“The service ensured sufficient staff were deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicines were not always given as prescribed
seriousA medicine prescribed before breakfast was given after breakfast on a number of occasions. The provider's audits had not identified this.
“On a number of occasions the medicine was administered after breakfast.” from the report
Safeguarding response
seriousInspectors found a record about threats of a punitive measure following behaviour that challenged. The service could not show a written account of the action taken at the time.
“The provider did not have systems and processes to respond appropriately and without delay when safety had been compromised.” from the report
DoLS records
seriousRecords of DoLS applications were incomplete and difficult to find. One application had not received written confirmation since 2014, and the provider could not find copies of some applications.
“The service did not maintain accurate and complete records in regard to people's DoLS applications.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe provider carried out audits, but these did not identify the problems inspectors found with medicines, safeguarding and DoLS records.
“The provider did not have effective systems to ensure it was able to monitor and assess the quality of their service.” from the report
- 01How are medicines that must be given before breakfast now recorded and checked?
- 02What is the current process for reporting and responding to safeguarding concerns, and how quickly are actions reviewed?
- 03Can you show us that all current DoLS applications, decisions and renewal dates are recorded and easy to find?
- 04What changes have been made to quality audits so they identify medicine, safeguarding and DoLS problems?
- 05What action did you take after the Requires Improvement rating, and what evidence can you show that the service has improved since this inspection?
This was an announced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with visits on three days and telephone contact with relatives; inspectors could not speak to all people living at the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 May 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 The Court
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
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 20 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Sunderland
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 £950 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.