CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Old Rectory
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found good arrangements in some areas, including visiting, admissions and managing outbreaks. They were only somewhat assured about mask use, staff testing, cleaning and checking vaccination status.
- 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 in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found some good COVID-19 controls but concerns about PPE, testing checks and cleanliness.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 10 March 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention, visiting arrangements and whether staffing pressures affected people.
The home had individual COVID-19 support plans and risk assessments. Staff had infection control and COVID-19 training, and information about using protective equipment was displayed.
Inspectors were not fully assured about some infection control arrangements. Several staff were not wearing masks properly. There was no system to confirm staff had completed lateral flow tests before shifts. Cleaning records had gaps, some rooms were dusty and some bathroom bins were damaged.
The service was inspected but not rated. This was not a full assessment of the home's overall quality, and the report does not give ratings for the other four questions.
Individual safety planning
The home had support plans and risk assessments that considered people's individual COVID-19 needs and safety.
“The provider had support plans and risk assessments in place considering people's individual needs and the support they needed to promote their safety and wellbeing in relation to COVID-19.” from the report
Staff training
Staff told inspectors they had infection control and COVID-19 training, and the home's records confirmed this.
“Staff we spoke with told us they had training in infection prevention and control and COVID-19.” from the report
Information about PPE
The home displayed clear instructions about using protective equipment in different situations.
“The provider had clear information on display about how staff should use personal protective equipment (PPE) in different situations” from the report
Masks not worn properly
needs fixingInspectors saw several staff wearing face masks incorrectly. This did not follow the home's displayed instructions or available guidance.
“During a tour of the service, we observed several staff not wearing facemasks properly.” from the report
No pre-shift testing check
needs fixingThe home did not have a system to make sure staff had completed lateral flow tests before starting work.
“The provider did not have systems in place to ensure that staff had completed lateral flow testing before the start of their shifts.” from the report
Cleaning problems
needs fixingCleaning records for frequently touched areas were incomplete. Some people's rooms had cobwebs and significant dust, and some communal bathroom bins had broken lids.
“We reviewed cleaning records of high touch areas and found several gaps in recordings that these areas were being cleaned consistently.” from the report
Vaccination evidence was not checked
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured that vaccination requirements were being met because evidence was not requested before they entered.
“This is because we were not asked to produce evidence of vaccination status before entering the premises.” from the report
- 01What action plan did the home put in place after the inspection, and have all the listed problems been fixed?
- 02How do managers now check that staff wear face masks correctly throughout their shifts?
- 03How does the home confirm that staff complete lateral flow testing before starting work?
- 04How often are high-touch areas and people's rooms cleaned, and how is this checked and recorded?
- 05How does the home check vaccination status for staff and visiting professionals before they enter?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; it did not rate the other four questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 March 2022 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 Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some pressure on staffing and areas needing refurbishment.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 15 January 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, a relative, staff and visiting health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines, training, safeguarding information, accidents, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were protected from abuse, staff understood their needs, and medicines were being managed safely. The home was clean and people were supported with food, healthcare and activities.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans included their likes, dislikes and preferences, and people and families were involved in care reviews. The home had improved since the previous inspection, when Safe was rated Requires Improvement because of medicines and cleanliness.
The inspectors noted that some communal areas and hallways looked tired and needed decoration or refurbishment. Some staff also said more help would support activities and busy mornings. The manager was going through the CQC registration process and was not yet registered at the time of the visit.
Improved safety
The home had addressed earlier concerns about medicines and cleanliness. Inspectors found medicines were administered by trained staff and records were accurate and checked.
“Improvements had been made to ensure that people continued to receive their medicines safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said they felt well cared for. Staff understood people's relationships, communication needs and preferences, while supporting independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes and preferences. People and families were involved in planning and reviewing care.
“Care plans contained personalised information, likes, dislikes and preferences, and set out how staff should meet people's needs.” from the report
Open management
Staff felt supported by the manager and said they could raise concerns or ideas. Quality audits and resident meetings were used to identify and address improvements.
“There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Busy periods
needs fixingSome people and staff felt staffing could be improved, especially in the mornings. Inspectors did not see anyone having to wait for support during the visit.
“Staff we spoke with said they felt happy that safe staffing levels were met, but more help would be beneficial to people, particularly in the mornings which were sometimes busy.” from the report
Activities
minorSome staff said there was not always enough time to run activities. Most people were satisfied with the activities available.
“Some staff felt there was not always enough time to run them.” from the report
Decoration and refurbishment
minorSeveral hallways and communal areas looked tired and needed improvement. The manager showed inspectors an improvement plan for this work.
“Many areas within the building including hallways and communal areas looked tired and in need of decoration and refurbishment or replacement.” from the report
Manager registration
minorThere was no registered manager at the time of inspection. A manager was in post and was going through the CQC registration process.
“There was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01How many staff are planned for mornings, and how do you respond if people need more help at busy times?
- 02What activities are currently available, and how do you make sure there is enough staff time to provide them?
- 03What work has been completed, or is planned, to decorate and refurbish the tired communal areas and hallways?
- 04Has the manager completed the CQC registration process since this inspection?
- 05How are medicines risks now documented and checked?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care, premises, records, staff support and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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 The Old Rectory
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.