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.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control during a targeted COVID-19 review.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 8 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control during COVID-19, and asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, supporting testing, managing visitors, and following shielding and social distancing rules. They also found updated cleaning arrangements, ventilation and risk assessments.
The inspection was not given a rating. It does not provide a full assessment of the home’s care, staffing, leadership or responsiveness.
Infection prevention
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage infection. This included PPE, testing, cleaning, ventilation and an up-to-date infection control policy.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Contact with loved ones
People could receive visits in line with government guidance and could also use video calls, emails and other visiting arrangements.
“People were supported to have contact with their loved ones.” from the report
Updated risk assessments
The home had updated risk assessments to take account of extra COVID-19 risks, including risks for people who were isolating.
“Risk assessments had been updated to consider any additional risks from Covid-19 for example where people were isolating falls risks were considered.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, cleaning and ventilation?
- 02What arrangements are currently in place for visits, video calls and contact with relatives?
- 03How do you identify and manage extra risks for people who need to isolate?
- 04Are there currently any staffing pressures, and what effect do they have on people living here?
- 05How do you manage and communicate any infection outbreak?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 April 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, July 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the home’s quality checks needed improvement.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 4 and 5 June 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and reviewed care plans, staff records, medicines records, accident reports and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were protected from abuse, medicines were handled safely, staffing levels were suitable and staff were properly recruited. People received kind care and were involved in decisions about their support.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Quality audits were in place, but some did not clearly show what was checked or what actions needed following up. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulations previously identified.
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were administered and stored safely. Records showed when medicines had been given, and there were clear instructions for medicines given when needed.
“People's medicines were administered safely. People were given time to take their medicines and staff completed Medicine Administration Records (MARs) to show when medicines had been administered.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People were supported by caring staff who respected privacy and dignity. Staff also encouraged people to remain as independent as possible.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people’s preferences and supported them to make choices about food, activities and daily life. Relatives and people were involved in care planning.
“People and relatives were involved in their care and support and contributed to their own care plans.” from the report
Good access to healthcare
People were supported to see health professionals when needed. The report noted weekly GP visits and timely referrals to other services.
“People were supported by weekly GP visits to the home to meet their health needs.” from the report
Improvement since the previous inspection
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. The provider had addressed the earlier breaches relating to medicines, safeguarding and governance.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Unclear quality audits
needs fixingSome audits did not clearly explain what was checked or what needed to happen next. This meant inspectors could not be sure that actions had always been completed consistently.
“However, it was not always clear from some audits what specific information was being looked at and what action was required to follow up on the findings.” from the report
Mental capacity checks
minorInspectors recommended reviewing some specific decisions to see whether mental capacity assessments were needed. The provider later sent assessments relating to decisions about medicines.
“We recommended that the provider looked at other specific decisions to determine if mental capacity assessments should be completed.” from the report
- 01What does the new care plan audit tool check, and how do you record and follow up any actions?
- 02How do you make sure medicines records and procedures remain accurate and safe?
- 03Which specific decisions have been reviewed for mental capacity, and how are best-interest decisions recorded?
- 04How will relatives be involved in reviewing care plans and raising concerns?
- 05How do you monitor whether staffing levels continue to meet people’s needs?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC key questions; inspectors also reviewed a sample of four care records, three staff files and the home’s management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 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.
Every inspection of The Old Rectory
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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 Staffordshire
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 £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.